Roy L. Perry-Bey, and all others similarly situated v. John E. Whitley

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1604
ROY L. PERRY-BEY, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
PHILLIP WEBSTER, and all others similarly situated; GEORGE BOWE, and all
others similarly situated; ANTHONY HAROLD; ROBERT LEE SIMPSON, and
all others similarly situated; VIVIAN A. ANDERSON; MARY E. HILL, and all
others similarly situated; CORNELL MORRIS, and all others similarly situated;
ESPER L. HURDLE, JR., and all others similarly situated; EARNEST W. GIBBS,
and all others similarly situated; WALTER WATSON, and all others similarly
situated; JOHN G. TAYLOR; LAWRENCE TAYLOR, and all others similarly
situated; DANIEL DELOACH, and all others similarly situated; WILLIAM T.
HAYES; RORY T. JENKINS, and all others similarly situated; KRYSTAL D.
JONES, and all others similarly situated; CHRISTOPHER L. THOMPSON, and all
others similarly situated; ANTHONY W. ELLIOTT, and all others similarly
situated; NEAL C. MORRISON, and all others similarly situated; RONALD M.
GREEN, as Special Representative of the Estate of Wendell Alonzo Willis,
deceased,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN E. WHITLEY; THOMAS B. MODLY, in his official capacity as Acting
Secretary of the Navy; DENIS R. MCDONOUGH; JOHN P. ROTH; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; LLOYD AUSTIN,
Defendants - Appellees.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00344-RAJ-DEM)
Submitted: December 2, 2021 Decided: January 5, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roy L. Perry-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Garry Daniel Hartlieb, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Roy L. Perry-Bey appeals the district court’s order administratively closing this
case, terminating all pending motions, and ordering that new actions be opened for each
individual plaintiff who filed a third amended complaint.* We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Perry-Bey v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, No. 2:19-cv-00344-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va.
May 13, 2021). We deny Perry-Bey’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
* Perry-Bey’s third amended complaint is currently pending in Perry-Bey v. U.S.
Dep’t of Defense, No. 2:21-cv-00268-RAJ-DEM.

-- 3 of 3 --