Court Opinion

ID: 9840711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 21:00:54.544956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:40.388485
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6561      Doc: 17         Filed: 09/18/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6561

        TARUN KUMAR VYAS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        STEPHEN R. SOFINSKI; DEREK WHETZHEL; SHERON ASHBY; HEAD OF
        GUARDIAN AD LITEMS, VA; HEAD OF BLUE RIDGE LEGAL SERVICE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:23-cv-00075-EKD-JCH)

        Submitted: September 14, 2023                               Decided: September 18, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tarun Kumar Vyas, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6561      Doc: 17         Filed: 09/18/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Tarun Kumar Vyas appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b). We have reviewed the record and find

        no reversible error in the district court’s finding that Defendants were not liable under

        § 1983 because they had not acted under color of state law, nor in its decision to decline to

        exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Vyas’ state law claims. Accordingly, we deny

        Vyas’ motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s order. Vyas v.

        Sofinski, No. 7:23-cv-00075-EKD-JCH (W.D. Va. May 19, 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