Raymond Hurndon v. Nsekenene Kolongo
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND Q. HURNDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NSEKENENE KOLONGO, Nurse, Doctor Practitioner; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, Medical Provider; ABLASBAU, Nurse Practitioner, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00062-REP)
July 18, 2008
August 12, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Q. Hurndon, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Joseph McNelis, III, Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: In January of 2007, Raymond Q. Hurndon filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that he had received inadequate medical care while imprisoned in Virginia. On October 15, 2007, Hurndon filed a motion which
clearly informed the district court that he had been transferred to the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center located in Columbia, South Carolina. On that same date, the magistrate judge filed a
memorandum order notifying Hurndon of various matters, including the fact that he had 120 days to serve the defendants, that he must serve a copy of any pleading on all parties, and that he must inform the court of any change in address. Hurndon's prior address. This order was sent to
Thereafter, by order filed on April 9,
2008, the court dismissed without prejudice Hurndon's action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) on the grounds that its October 15, 2007 memorandum order was "returned to the Court by the United States postal service marked, `NO LONGER AT THIS ADDRESS RETURN TO
(R. 15). Because it appears that Hurndon did provide notice of his
address change, we vacate and remand the court's order dismissing Hurndon's action for failure to do so. Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d
69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978) (stating review standard for Rule 41(b) dismissal). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 2 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?