Ophelia De'Lonta v. Sarah Pruitt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:11-cv-00483-JCT-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999265044]. Mailed to: Ophelia De'Lonta, Antonio Jackson. [13-7307]--[Edited 12/23/2013 by CH]

Appeal: 13-7307

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7307

OPHELIA AZRIEL DE’LONTA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SARAH PRUITT, Correctional Officer,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, VADOC; G. K. WASHINGTON, Regional
Admin; LARRY EDMONDS, Warden, BKCC; C. DAVIS, Major, Chief
of
Security;
DAVIS,
Institutional
Investigator;
AGENT
WATSON,
Internal
Affairs
Unit;
LISA
LANG,
Staff
Psychologist; ATTORNEY GENERAL KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI; DON
LEMOND, Director,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00483-JCT-RSB)

Submitted:

December 19, 2013

Decided:

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

December 23, 2013

Appeal: 13-7307

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Ophelia Azriel De’Lonta, Appellant Pro Se.
Antonio Pierre
Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF A. PIERRE JACKSON, P.C., Hampden-Sydney,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-7307

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/23/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ophelia Azriel De’Lonta appeals the jury verdict in
favor of Defendant Sarah Pruitt and the district court’s prior
order granting the other Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
in De’Lonta’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action.
the record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed

Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. *

De’Lonta v.

Pruitt, No. 7:11-cv-00483-JCT-RSB (W.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2012; July
18, 2013).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

*

We note that the only issue De’Lonta raises with respect
to the jury trial is Pruitt’s failure to timely respond to
De’Lonta’s revised motion to compel production of documents. We
find no reversible error in this regard.

3