Frankie LordMaster v. Sussex II State Prison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00507-JCC-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999523244]. Mailed to: LordMaster. [14-7428]

Appeal: 14-7428

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7428

FRANKIE JAE LORDMASTER, f/k/a Jason Robert Goldader,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUSSEX II STATE PRISON; WARDEN VARGO, Chief Warden; J. DOE
#1, VDOC: Health Service Contractor Administrator; J. DOE
#2, Medical Director; J. DOE #3, Corizon Medical Department;
J. DOE #4, Nurse (Responsible); J. DOE #5, Doctor
(Responsible),
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00507-JCC-TRJ)

Submitted:

January 28, 2015

Decided:

February 4, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frankie Jae LordMaster, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7428

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Jae

appeals

PER CURIAM:
Frankie

LordMaster

the

district

court’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without
prejudice for failure to comply with its prior order.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).

We review the district court’s order for

abuse of discretion.
(4th Cir. 1989).

See Fed.

Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96

“A court abuses its discretion if its decision

is guided by erroneous legal principles or rests upon a clearly
erroneous factual finding.”

United States v. McLean, 715 F.3d

129, 142 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The
because

it

district

found

that

court

dismissed

LordMaster

had

LordMaster’s
not

filed

complaint, as the court had instructed him to do.

complaint

an

amended

On appeal,

LordMaster is emphatic that he filed an amended complaint and
submits that it is the paper the court docketed as “Documents”
at PACER entry number fourteen.
entry

number

complaint. *

fourteen

is

We agree that the filing at

LordMaster’s

attempt

at

an

amended

While the district court may yet determine that the

amended complaint does not meet its specifications, we conclude
that the district court relied “upon a clearly erroneous factual

*

LordMaster did not file this document on the § 1983
complaint form.
We note that in its June 17, 2014 order, the
district court did not direct the clerk to provide LordMaster a
new copy of that form.

2

Appeal: 14-7428

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/04/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

finding” when dismissing the complaint.
marks omitted).

Id. (internal quotation

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s

order and remand for further proceedings.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

3