Jovon Davis v. Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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). We review the district court’s order for abuse of
discretion. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95–96 (4th Cir.
1989). “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. While the district court may
yet determine that the tardiness 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. Id. (internal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
quotation marks omitted). 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 of 3 --