Paulus Irvin Perkins v. CARA PRUETT, Individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6667
PAULUS IRVIN PERKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CARA PRUETT, Individually and as Business Manager; V. STOKES, Individually
and as Assistant Business Manager; S. MOE-WILLIS, Individually and as Regional
Ombudsman; G. CONWELL, Individually and as Fiscal Technician; D. JOHNSON
AMA, Individually and as Grievance Respondent; TERRILYN ABERNATHY,
Individually and as Grievance Respondent; A. JACKSON, Individually and as
Grievance Coordinator; MARIE MITCHELL, Individually and as Counselor; V.
DILLARD, Official Capacity; F. B. SHUPARD, Individually and as
Sergeant/Corrections Officer; A. E. SPEEDE, Individually and as
Lieutenant/Corrections Officer; R. T. JACKSON, Individually and as Counselor;
M. TOMLIN, Individually and as Program Manager; S. L. JONES, Individually and
as Sergeant/Corrections Officer; L. WITCHER, Individually and as Hearings
Officer; J. ADAMS, Individually and as Grievance Respondent,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cv-00919-RDA-TCB)
Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023
Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Paulus Irvin Perkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Paulus Irvin Perkins appeals the district court’s orders directing him to amend his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, denying reconsideration, directing him to file a second
amended complaint, and dismissing his second amended complaint for failure to state a
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Perkins v. Pruett, No.
1:21-cv-00919-RDA-TCB (E.D. Va. Aug. 23 & Dec. 1, 2021, Feb. 9 & May 4, 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

-- 3 of 3 --