Court Opinion

ID: 9957253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 21:01:33.83721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:13.953992
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7015       Doc: 9         Filed: 04/02/2024   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7015

        JOSHUAL LAMAR DAVIS,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        IAN MAXFIELD, Sheriff Deputy; JOSHUA WILLIAMS, Sheriff Deputy; MARK
        SUROVICK, Sheriff Deputy,

                             Defendants - Appellees,

                      and

        JARREL BAKER, Wake County Sheriff; WAKE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

                             Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-ct-03234-M)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                           Decided: April 2, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Joshual Lamar Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7015      Doc: 9        Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Joshual Lamar Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice

        his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the remaining Defendants under Fed. R.

        Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to effectuate service of process. We have reviewed the record and

        find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Davis v.

        Maxfield, No. 5:21-ct-03234-M (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2023).            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

                                                    2