USCA4 Appeal: 24-6324 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6324

DENNIS KEITH SMITH, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SGT. ROGERS, Hampton Roads Regional Jail; LT. JONES, Hampton Roads Regional Jail; COL. VERGAKIS, Hampton Roads Regional Jail; NURSE WERMTER, Well Path Medical Services; WELL PATH MEDICAL SERVICES; HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL JAIL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jamar Kentrell Walker, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00248-JKW-RJK)

Submitted: September 12, 2024 Decided: September 16, 2024

Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Keith Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6324 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Virginia inmate Dennis Keith Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing

without prejudice Smith’s

action. Upon initial review of Smith’s

complaint, the court was unable to determine whether Smith had stated cognizable claims

against each Defendant individually. The court therefore ordered Smith to amend his

complaint with particularized allegations within 21 days and warned him that, if he failed

do so, the court would dismiss the action without prejudice. Sixty-one days later, with no

response from Smith, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. Smith appealed.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The court warned Smith

of the consequences of failing to amend his complaint. Further, the dismissal without

prejudice permits Smith to refile. Finally, Smith’s informal brief does not challenge the

basis for the court’s dismissal. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s order. Smith v. Rogers, No. 2:23-cv-00248-JKW-RJK (E.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2024).

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