Court Opinion

ID: 9391000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 21:01:29.586634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:38.742656
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2254      Doc: 9         Filed: 04/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-2254

        MONTGOMERY CARL AKERS,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        JAMIE CONOVER; GUY PAGLI; JODI WAMBLER; KATHERINE N.
        SIEREVELD; KATHY S. HILL; N. SIMPKINS; APRYL CRUIT; HENRY RIVAS;
        MILTON NEUMANN; GARY BURGESS,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00109-GMG-RWT)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                           Decided: April 27, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Montgomery Carl Akers, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2254      Doc: 9        Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Montgomery Carl Akers appeals the district court’s orders dismissing Akers’ civil

        complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, denying his motions for a preliminary

        injunction, and denying his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find

        no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Akers v. Conover,

        No. 3:22-cv-00109-GMG-RWT (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 19, 2022; Oct. 13, 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

                                                    2