Opinion
22-6667
08-31-2023
PAULUS IRVIN PERKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CARA PRUETT, Individually and as Business Manager; V. STOKES, Individually and as Assistant Business Manager; S. MOE-WILLIS, Individually and as Regional Ombudsman; G. CONWELL, Individually and as Fiscal Technician; D. JOHNSON AMA, Individually and as Grievance Respondent; TERRILYN ABERNATHY, Individually and as Grievance Respondent; A. JACKSON, Individually and as Grievance Coordinator; MARIE MITCHELL, Individually and as Counselor; V. DILLARD, Official Capacity; F. B. SHUPARD, Individually and as Sergeant/Corrections Officer; A. E. SPEEDE, Individually and as Lieutenant/Corrections Officer; R. T. JACKSON, Individually and as Counselor; M. TOMLIN, Individually and as Program Manager; S. L. JONES, Individually and as Sergeant/Corrections Officer; L. WITCHER, Individually and as Hearings Officer; J. ADAMS, Individually and as Grievance Respondent, Defendants - Appellees.
Paulus Irvin Perkins, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 29, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cv-00919-RDA-TCB)
Paulus Irvin Perkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Paulus Irvin Perkins appeals the district court's orders directing him to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, denying reconsideration, directing him to file a second amended complaint, and dismissing his second amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. Perkins v. Pruett, No. 1:21-cv-00919-RDA-TCB (E.D. Va. Aug. 23 &Dec. 1, 2021, Feb. 9 &May 4, 2022). 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