U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2014

Frankie Lordmaster v. Augusta Correctional Center

Frankie Lordmaster v. Augusta Correctional Center
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 3, 2014

Frankie Lordmaster v. Augusta Correctional Center

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6563

FRANKIE JAE LORDMASTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER PERSONNEL; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AGENTS; KITCHEN PERSONNEL; SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL; CFD HEARING PERSONNEL; POLICY MAKING PERSONNEL; CFD COMMITTEE; INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM MANAGER; WARDEN, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-6566

FRANKIE JAE LORDMASTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER PERSONNEL; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AGENTS; OTHER AGENTS OF GOVERNMENT; LAW LIBRARY SECRETARY; LAW LIBRARY MANAGER; SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL; LAW LIBRARY HEARING PERSONNEL; POLICY MAKING PERSONNEL; LAW LIBRARY COMMITTEE; IPM; WARDEN, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (7:14-cv-00014-MFU-RSB; 7:14-cv-00021-MFU-RSB) Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frankie Jae LordMaster, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Frankie Jae LordMaster seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaints for failure to comply with the court’s orders and denying his motions for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

LordMaster v. Augusta Corr. Ctr. Personnel, Nos. 7:14-cv-00014- MFU-RSB; 7:14-cv-00021-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. filed Feb. 7, 2014 & entered Feb. 10, 2014; Apr. 10, 2014). 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.