Kevin Snodgrass, Jr. v. Harold Clark ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7671
KEVIN SNODGRASS, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
UHURU SEKOU OBATAIYE-ALLAH,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARK, Director, DOC; GERALD K. WASHINGTON,
Regional Director; R. MATHENA, Warden; JOHN WALRATH,
Assistant Warden; SHORTRIDGE, Operations Officer; J.
GALLIHAR, Major; J. MCQUEEN, Investigator; CCS, Central
Classification Services; SWINNEY, Unit Manager; KILBOURNE,
Unit Manager; SERGEANT HALL, Sergeant; SERGEANT INGLE; L. T.
MULLINS, Lieutenant; PAYNE, Lieutenant; J. MESSER, Grievance
Coordinator; R. MULLINS, Grievance Coordinator; J. OWENS,
Property; VANOVER, Property; I.H.O. L. MULLINS, Hearings
Officer; SERGEANT SYKES, Sergeant; C/O R. BROWN; C/O
VANOVER; C/O CARTER; C/O MESSER; C/O OFFICER MESSER; C/O
SHEPPARD; C/O DUPIE; C/O SLUSS; C/O AKERS; C/O GIBSON;
JOHN DOES; JANE DOES; L. T. LAMBERT, Lieutenant; LIEUTENANT
BLEVINS; LIEUTENANT LYLE; SERGEANT HILL; YOUNCE, Unit
Manager; SERGEANT BARTON; SERGEANT MILLER,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00257-GEC)
Submitted: April 13, 2015 Decided: April 22, 2015
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Snodgrass, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Snodgrass, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders
(1) dismissing this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action without
prejudice for failure to comply with a court order; and (2)
denying his motions for reconsideration and appointment of
counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Snodgrass v. Clark, No. 7:14-cv-00257-GEC (W.D.
Va. July 1 & Aug. 11, 2014). 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