Opinion
20-7813
07-01-2021
MOUSSA MOISE HABA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHERIFF BETH ARTHUR; T. ROBINSON, Sergeant; DEPUTY JORDAN; DEPUTY TURNER; FNU LYPHAN; JOHN DOE; OFFICER HALL; DEPUTY SMITH, S1154; SERGEANT PIT; OFFICER RICHARDSON; CAPTAIN BOWERS; CAPTAIN BURGESS; SERGEANT LYONS-CARR, S993; SERGEANT GARCIA, S905; MAJOR BLACK; MAJOR T. JOHNSTON; SERGEANT ABERNATHY, S486; SERGEANT HAYES, S922; SERGEANT ALVIA, S1012; LIEUTENANT ADAMS, S24; SERGEANT HOWERTON, S931; SERGEANT LEWIS, S891; CAPTAIN TERNENT; MAJOR BARRETT; SERGEANT LINDSEY; MRS. HORNE; MRS. WONG; MRS. BROOK; DEPUTY NOWAK; DEPUTY MCRAE; DEPUTY HILL, S1223; DEPUTY WILLIAMS; LIEUTENANT YOUNGER; MR. DALEY; DEPUTY ALCANTARA; SERGEANT BHAGWANDIN; MARJORIE BURRIS; MRS. KARL; MRS. SONYA; SONYA SHUHART; SERGEANT GUERRERO; LIEUTENANT ROGERS; DEPUTY IRONS; CAPTAIN FOSTER; HUMAM ALATHARI; WASIM QURESHI, Defendants - Appellants.
Moussa Moise Haba, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 29, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00686-HEH-RCY)
Moussa Moise Haba, Appellant Pro Se.
Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Moussa Moise Haba appeals the district court's order dismissing his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Regarding Haba's contention that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint before summonses were served on the defendants, service was not required before dismissing the action for failure to state a claim as 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A instruct the district court to dismiss a complaint "at any time" that dismissal appears warranted. See Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, like § 1915(e)(2), "clearly does not require that process be served . . . before dismissal."). Accordingly, we deny Haba's motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Haba v. Arthur, No. 3:19-cv-00686-HEH-EWH (E.D. Va. Nov. 16, 2020). 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.