Christina Moore v. Harrisonburg Police Department
This text of Christina Moore v. Harrisonburg Police Department (Christina Moore v. Harrisonburg Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1216 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1216
CHRISTINA MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARRISONBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT; EX-CHIEF KELLY WARNER; LIEUTENANT TODD MILLER; DETECTIVE BRADLEY MATTHIAS; SERGEANT MEGAN LAPREVOTTE; DETECTIVE JONATHAN SNODDY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Jasmine Hyejung Yoon, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00109-JHY-JCH)
Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 17, 2025
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christina Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1216 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Christina Moore appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her
pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a
claim. 1 We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s
determination that the relevant statutes of limitations barred Moore’s claims. 2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Moore v. Harrisonburg Police Dep’t,
No. 5:24-cv-00109-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va. Feb. 6, 2025). 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.
AFFIRMED
1 The district court’s order is final and appealable because the court did not grant leave to amend the complaint. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order). 2 Contrary to Moore’s assertion on appeal, she is not entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period. See Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1, 10 (2014) (explaining that equitable tolling applies “when a litigant has pursued [her] rights diligently but some extraordinary circumstance prevents [her] from bringing a timely action”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Christina Moore v. Harrisonburg Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christina-moore-v-harrisonburg-police-department-ca4-2025.