Shane Tew v. Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1882 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1882
SHANE MATTHEW TEW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY; WELLPATH, LLC; CORRECT
CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC; JOE DOE #1,
Defendants - Appellees.
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)
Submitted: February 28, 2023 Decided: March 15, 2023
Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1882 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
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)).
2