Court Opinion

ID: 9391105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 21:00:38.012898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.467722
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7356      Doc: 17         Filed: 04/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7356

        DESTINED C. GEORGE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        LT. MICHALEK; SGT. MOURING; CPT. LORD,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:19-cv-00155-MHL-MRC)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                         Decided: April 28, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Destined C. M. D. George, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7356         Doc: 17       Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Destined George, a Virginia inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against four

        correctional officers, including Defendant John Doe. The district court dismissed John

        Doe pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), concluding that George failed to establish good cause

        for failure to timely serve him. As to the remaining Defendants, the district court ultimately

        accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, dismissed George’s claims for failure

        to exhaust his administrative remedies, and denied reconsideration.

               Confining our review to the issues raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b);

        Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important

        document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that

        brief.”), we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

        George’s motion for a transcript at government expense, and we affirm the district court’s

        judgment. 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