Frederick Lewis v. Jeffery Newton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00431-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999666008].. [14-2242]

Appeal: 14-2242

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2242

FREDERICK LEWIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEFFERY L. NEWTON,
PAULA MCKENZIE,

CJM;

WALTER

J.

MINTON;

JOAN

LAFLAND;

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00431-JRS)

Submitted:

July 31, 2015

Decided:

September 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark J. Krudys, THE KRUDYS LAW FIRM, PLC, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY LAW FIRM, Dillwyn,
Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2242

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Frederick

Lewis

filed

a

civil

action

against

various

officials and staff at Riverside Regional Jail in Prince George
County, Virginia, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
for Eighth Amendment and due process violations, as well as a
Virginia state law claim for false imprisonment.

The district

court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action pursuant
to

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

12(b)(6),

finding

that

Defendants

were

entitled to qualified immunity and that Lewis’ claims otherwise
failed as a matter of law.
On appeal, Lewis challenges the court’s consideration of
records appended to the motion to dismiss.

A district court is

required to consider documents incorporated into the complaint,
Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharms. Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 625 (4th Cir.
2008), and documents attached to a motion to dismiss that are
integral

to

and

relied

on

in

the

complaint,

Zak

v.

Chelsea

Therapeutics Int’l, Ltd., 780 F.3d 597, 606-07 (4th Cir. 2015).
In addition, a court may take judicial notice of matters of
public record in considering a motion to dismiss.

Sec’y of

State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705
(4th Cir. 2007).

Therefore, the district court did not err in

considering the documents provided by the parties.
Our review of the record also confirms that, in declining
to

release

Lewis

earlier,

Defendants
2

acted

reasonably,

as

a

Appeal: 14-2242

Doc: 25

matter

of

law,

Filed: 09/24/2015

in

response

Pg: 3 of 3

to

the

ambiguous

information provided by the state courts.

and

changing

We therefore conclude

that the district court appropriately dismissed Lewis’ action.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3