The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
22-6930•Karsten O. Allen v. Officer B. Sater
22-6930Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 22, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6930
KARSTEN O. ALLEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER B. SATER; SERGEANT E. J. DALES; OFFICER B. VIARS; UNIT
MANAGER CHARLOTTE SHELTON; ROBERT WHITT, Chief of Housing and
Programs; ASSISTANT WARDEN KEVIN MCCOY; OFFICER R. DANIELS;
OFFICER J. MATNEY; OFFICER B. HURLEY; OFFICER HESS; SERGEANT
MCCOWAN; T. LOWE, Institutional Hearings Officer; UNIT MANAGER LARRY
FIELDS; WARDEN RODNEY YOUNCE; CARL MANIS, Regional
Administrator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (7:21-cv-00230-PMS)
Submitted: April 20, 2023 Decided: April 24, 2023
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karsten Obed Allen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Karsten O. Allen, a Virginia inmate, appeals the magistrate judge’s order1
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.2 We have reviewed the record
de novo and identified no error in the magistrate judge granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Mays v. Sprinkle, 992 F.3d 295, 299 (4th Cir. 2021)
(stating standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal). Accordingly, we affirm the
magistrate judge’s dismissal order. Allen v. Sater, No. 7:21-cv-00230-PMS (W.D. Va. July
19, 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
1 The parties consented to jurisdiction before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.
2 Although the magistrate judge dismissed Allen’s complaint without prejudice, we
conclude that the dismissal order is final and appealable. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790,
796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (published order).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.