Timothy Walton v. WVRJ Managerial Administration and Staff

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Timothy Walton v. WVRJ Managerial Administration and Staff

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1909 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1909

TIMOTHY DEXTER WALTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WVRJ MANAGERIAL ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF; COX, Regional Superintendent; SHAWN BODY, G.T.L. Telephone Manager; JOHN AND JANE DOES, Civilian and Correctional Officers; CAPTAIN WILLIE SMITH; LT. HAINES; SGT. TODD WILSON; WESTERN VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL ADMINISTRATIVE HEADS AND STAFF; KRISTOPHER JOHNSTON; PARKER BEARD, Disciplinary Officer; JONES, Laundry Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:23-cv-00436-TTC-JCH)

Submitted: October 2, 2025 Decided: October 21, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Dexter Walton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1909 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Dexter Walton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error.

The district court did not err in concluding that Walton failed to put forth facts plausibly

stating cognizable claims as to supervisory liability, conspiracy, or retaliation. Further, to

the extent that Walton made claims regarding the inmate grievance procedures and

deprivation of his personal property, the district court did not err in concluding that those

claims were not cognizable in the instant § 1983 action. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s order. Walton v. WVRJ Managerial Admin. & Staff, No. 7:23-cv-00436-TTC-JCH

(W.D. Va. Aug. 29, 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished