Joseph L. Boykin v. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2123
JOSEPH L. BOYKIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE;
ANDREW BLOCK, Director, in his official and individual
capacity; MARK GOOCH, Director, in his individual capacity;
ERIC TIGNOR, Department Investigator, in his official and
individual capacity; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE, BEAUMONT JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL CENTER;
PEGGY PARRISH, Superintendent, in her official and
individual capacity; CHARLES DOCKERY, Superintendent, in his
individual capacity; DAVID GRUBICH, Assistant
Superintendent, in his individual capacity; AARON DIXON,
Assistant Superintendent, in his official capacity; LAKARA
JOHNSON, Lieutenant, in her official and individual
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:14-cv-00811-HEH)
Submitted: February 29, 2016 Decided: March 9, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Joseph L. Boykin, Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Spreague Hardy,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Joseph L. Boykin appeals the district court’s orders
substituting proper party-defendants, granting Defendants’
motion to dismiss Boykin’s complaint, and denying as moot
Boykin’s miscellaneous motions. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Boykin v. Commonwealth of
Va. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, No. 3:14-cv-00811-HEH (E.D. Va.
Aug. 20, 2015). We deny Boykin’s motion for appointment of
counsel. We deny his motion to schedule 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 --