The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-7586•Jose D. Bonilla v. LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director; L. HAYDEN, Officer; W. R. HENSLEY, Hearing Officer
09-7586Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 19, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7586
JOSE D. BONILLA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director; L. HAYDEN, Officer; W. R.
HENSLEY, Hearing Officer,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (7:09-cv-00342-gec-mfu)
Submitted: December 29, 2009 Decided: January 19, 2010
Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose D. Bonilla, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Jose D. Bonilla appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2006). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.* Bonilla
v. Huffman, No. 7:09-cv-00342-gec-mfu (W.D. Va. Aug. 12, 2009).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* In addition to seeking review of the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint, Bonilla also asserts on appeal that
he was not afforded the opportunity to amend the complaint.
Generally, a pro se litigant’s pleadings should be construed
liberally to avoid inequity. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d
1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). If a pro se complaint contains a
potentially cognizable claim, the plaintiff should be given an
opportunity to particularize his allegations. See Coleman v.
Peyton, 340 F.2d 603, 604 (4th Cir. 1965) (per curiam). Because
Bonilla’s allegations fail to give rise to a potentially
cognizable claim under § 1983, the district court did not err in
denying Bonilla the opportunity to amend his complaint prior to
dismissing it.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.