Court Opinion

ID: 9837975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:00:54.36596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.670986
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6252      Doc: 9        Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6252

        SANTANA WIMBUSH,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        GLENN YOUNGKIN, Governor of Virginia; JASON S. MIYARES, Attorney
        General of Virginia; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Department of
        Corrections,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:22-cv-00640-MFU-JCH)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Santana Wimbush, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6252      Doc: 9        Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

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

        complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

        be granted, and a subsequent order denying reconsideration and leave to file an amended

        complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s orders. Wimbush v. Youngkin, No. 7:22-cv-00640-MFU-JCH

        (W.D. Va. Jan. 13 & Mar. 14, 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