Court Opinion

ID: 9838002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:01:19.570066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.745932
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6502      Doc: 8         Filed: 09/01/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6502

        ASKARI DANSO MS LUMUMBA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     and

        JOHN BEVERLY; ANTHONY SHAW; TYRONE TROWELL; THOMAS ROSE,

                            Plaintiffs,

                     v.

        HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the VADOC; A. DAVID ROBINSON, VADOC
        Chief of Correctional Operations; DAVID ANDERSON, Warden at RNCC;
        GLOBAL TEL LINK (GTL),

                            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-00080-MFU-JCH)

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

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6502      Doc: 8        Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        Askari Danso MS Lumumba, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6502         Doc: 8    Filed: 09/01/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              Askari Danso MS Lumumba appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

        42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).

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

        district court’s order. Lumumba v. Clarke, No. 7:22-cv-00080-MFU-JCH (W.D. Va. May

        11, 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

                                                  3