Court Opinion

ID: 9374769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:00:58.900775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.919030
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7097       Doc: 16        Filed: 02/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7097

        LAMAR NASHAWN DORSEY,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CORPORAL CHRISTOPHER RANDOLPH,

                             Defendant - Appellee,

                      and

        SOUTHWESTERN REGIONAL JAIL,

                             Defendant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:19-cv-00608)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7097      Doc: 16         Filed: 02/22/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Lamar Nashawn Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se. John P. Fuller and Suleiman O. Oko-ogua,
        BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7097         Doc: 16      Filed: 02/22/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              Lamar Nashawn Dorsey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42

        U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm.         Dorsey v. Randolph, No. 2:19-cv-00608 (S.D.W. Va.

        Aug. 30, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

        are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    3