Jovon Davis v. VDOC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00327-CMH-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999976654]. Mailed to: Jovon Davis. [16-6975]

Appeal: 16-6975

Doc: 13

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6975

JOVON DAVIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD CLARK, Virginia
Department of Corrections Director; JAMES KEELING, Warden;
DR. JAMES BROCKINGTON; DR. SYED RAZA, I.C.C.C. Tel-Med
Mitt. Clinic; PAMELA WOODS, Unit Manager; LIEUTENANT
TAYLOR; OFFICER POWERS, Correctional Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:16-cv-00327-CMH-TCB)

Submitted:

November 8, 2016

Decided:

November 29, 2016

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jovon Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6975

Doc: 13

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jovon Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his

42

U.S.C.

§

1983

(2012)

complaint

without

prejudice

for

failure to comply with its prior order.

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b).

order

We

review

discretion.
1989).

the

district

court’s

for

abuse

of

Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95–96 (4th Cir.

“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 district court dismissed Davis’ complaint because it
found that Davis had not responded to an order requiring Davis
to submit several documents within 30 days.

On appeal, Davis

contends that he submitted the required documents for mailing to
the

prison

mailroom.

The

record

demonstrates

that

Davis

initially sent the requested materials to the wrong district
court.

The required documents were filed with the correct court

before the district court entered its order, although about two
weeks after the 30-day deadline.
yet

determine

that

the

tardiness

While the district court may
of

Davis’

filings

warrants

dismissal, we conclude that the district court relied “upon a
clearly erroneous factual finding” when dismissing the complaint
for failure to respond to the court’s order.

2

Id. (internal

Appeal: 16-6975

Doc: 13

Filed: 11/29/2016

quotation marks omitted).

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we vacate the district

court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

3