Opinion
22-1882
03-15-2023
SHANE MATTHEW TEW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY; WELLPATH, LLC; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC; JOE DOE #1, Defendants-Appellees.
Andrew M. Sacks, SACKS & SACKS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority. Angela B. Axselle, WIMBISH GENTILE MCCRAY &ROEBER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees Wellpath, LLC and Correct Care Solutions, LLC.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 28, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:21-cv-00641-RAJ-DEM)
ON BRIEF:
Andrew M. Sacks, SACKS & SACKS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority.
Angela B. Axselle, WIMBISH GENTILE MCCRAY &ROEBER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees Wellpath, LLC and Correct Care Solutions, LLC.
Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Shane Matthew Tew appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim in his civil action raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Virginia state law. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tew v. Hampton Rds. Reg'l Jail Auth., No. 2:21-cv-00641-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va. July 21, 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.
[*] In a separate order, the district court dismissed without prejudice Defendant John Doe #1 because Tew failed to identify Doe's name and address and effect service upon him. However, because Tew does not challenge this ruling in his brief, we do not consider it on appeal. See Adbul-Mumit v. Alexandria Hyundai, LLC, 896 F.3d 278, 290 (4th Cir. 2018) ("[C]ontentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned." (internal quotation marks omitted)).