Court Opinion

ID: 9410661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-22 21:00:40.919766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:59.283512
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7309      Doc: 18         Filed: 07/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7309

        DAVE THOMAS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN T. JARRELL, Warden / Building Security; CAPTAIN B. CLAUDE; A.
        ANDERSON, Head Food Supervisor S-1; C. CREQUE, Food Supervisor; D.
        PETERSON, APS Complaint Coordinator S-1 Support Building; D. DALE, Unit
        Manager S-1; C. WRIGHT, Captain for Security S-3 Support Building; C.
        PUTNEY, Warden for Building Units,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00243-AWA-RJK)

        Submitted: June 20, 2023                                          Decided: July 21, 2023

        Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dave Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7309      Doc: 18        Filed: 07/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Dave Thomas appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        complaint for failure to state a claim and declining to exercise jurisdiction over his

        state-law claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

        we affirm the district court’s order. Thomas v. Jarrell, No. 2:21-cv-00243-AWA-RJK

        (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2022). We deny Thomas’ motion to appoint counsel and 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