Lenir Richardson v. John Hancq ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1405
LENIR RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN HANCQ, Officer; CAROLYN NEY, Officer; COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA; JOSEPH MARTIN; HSBC BANK OF USA, N.A.; BB&B BANK;
BB&T TRUST CORP. SYSTEM; AMANDA DEPTULA, Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00053-AJT-TCB)
Submitted: October 24, 2018 Decided: November 8, 2018
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lenir Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. George Arthur McAndrews, OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Sherry A. Fox, THOMPSON MCMULLAN
PC, Richmond, Virginia; Alan Durrum Wingfield, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lenir Richardson appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing her complaint
for failing to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and for failing to respond
to the order to show cause. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by not giving Richardson leave to amend
her complaint. Willner v. Dimon, 849 F.3d 93, 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (finding no abuse of
discretion when district court did not respond to Plaintiffs’ requests to amend complaint).
We conclude that Richardson failed to state a claim against any of the Defendants.
Trejo v. Ryman Hosp. Props., Inc., 795 F.3d 442, 445-46 (4th Cir. 2015) (stating standard
of review). While we grant Richardson leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the
district court’s judgment. We deny Joseph Martin’s motion to dismiss and deny as moot
Richardson’s motion in opposition to the motion to dismiss. 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