Court Opinion

ID: 9837998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:01:15.792122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.754499
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6549      Doc: 11         Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6549

        DANIEL W. PHOENIX, a/k/a Daniel W. Jamison,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        MARK HERRING, Former Attorney General of Virginia, individual capacity;
        RICHARD VORHIS, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division
        of VA, individual capacity; STACIE A. SESSOMS, Assistant Attorney General of
        VA, individual capacity,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00360-MHL-MRC)

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

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Daniel W. Phoenix, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6549      Doc: 11         Filed: 09/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Daniel W. Phoenix appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

        no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. * Jamison v. Herring,

        No. 3:22-cv-00360-MHL-MRC (E.D. Va. May 25, 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

               *
                 Because we affirm the district court’s frivolousness finding, we need not reach the
        court’s alternative determination that Phoenix’s action was malicious.

                                                     2