Frederick Lewis v. Jeffery Newton ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2242
FREDERICK LEWIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEFFERY L. NEWTON, CJM; WALTER J. MINTON; JOAN LAFLAND;
PAULA MCKENZIE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00431-JRS)
Submitted: July 31, 2015 Decided: September 24, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark J. Krudys, THE KRUDYS LAW FIRM, PLC, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY LAW FIRM, Dillwyn,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Lewis filed a civil action against various
officials and staff at Riverside Regional Jail in Prince George
County, Virginia, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
for Eighth Amendment and due process violations, as well as a
Virginia state law claim for false imprisonment. The district
court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), finding that Defendants were
entitled to qualified immunity and that Lewis’ claims otherwise
failed as a matter of law.
On appeal, Lewis challenges the court’s consideration of
records appended to the motion to dismiss. A district court is
required to consider documents incorporated into the complaint,
Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharms. Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 625 (4th Cir.
2008), and documents attached to a motion to dismiss that are
integral to and relied on in the complaint, Zak v. Chelsea
Therapeutics Int’l, Ltd., 780 F.3d 597, 606-07 (4th Cir. 2015).
In addition, a court may take judicial notice of matters of
public record in considering a motion to dismiss. Sec’y of
State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705
(4th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the district court did not err in
considering the documents provided by the parties.
Our review of the record also confirms that, in declining
to release Lewis earlier, Defendants acted reasonably, as a
2
matter of law, in response to the ambiguous and changing
information provided by the state courts. We therefore conclude
that the district court appropriately dismissed Lewis’ action.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
3