Tashawn Thorne v. Officer Wesley

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Tashawn Thorne v. Officer Wesley

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7345

TASHAWN QWANTREAL THORNE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER WESLEY, Piedmont Correctional Officer; OFFICER SHERWIN, Piedmont Regional Jail; OFFICER BOOKER, Piedmont Regional Jail Officer; OFFICER MANNS; OFFICER NEWCUM; OFFICER EVANS; OFFICER STOKES,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

MS. BOWEN, Mental Health; MS. L. SMITH, Medical Nurse; MRS. SERGEANT TISDALE, Grievance Coordinator; MR. TISDALE, Lieutenant; MS. ROBENSON, Sergeant; OFFICER WOLFER; MAJOR PEW; CAPTAIN WALKER; OFFICER LANGSTON; PIEDMONT REGIONAL JAIL, Private Jail; VIRGINIA, Commonwealth of Virginia; RAYMOND RIDLEY, Lieutenant; LANAY WALKER, Captain; TERRY SCOTT, Captain; STEVE AGNEW, Major; ROBERT PUGH, Major; DONALD HUNTER, Superintendent; CHARLES SAMMUEL, JR., FBOP Director; LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General; DR. MARINO, Doctor at Piedmont Regional Jail; MARY T. JONES, Nurse; CAPTAIN SILAS BLANTON,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:16-cv-00722-RDA-JFA) Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tashawn Qwantreal Thorne, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Tashawn Qwantreal Thorne appeals the district court’s orders denying relief in his

42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thorne v. Wesley,

No. 1:16-cv-00722-RDA-JFA (E.D. Va. filed June 30, 2017, & entered July 3, 2017; Aug.

27, 2019). We deny Thorne’s motion to appoint counsel and 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished