Isaiah Demarcus Gordon v. Officer Cambell

W.D. Virginia

Isaiah Demarcus Gordon v. Officer Cambell

District Court, W.D. Virginia·Decided August 4, 2026·No. 7:26-cv-00418·Unknown

Opinion

NATHARRISONBURG, VA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA “aes ROANOKE DIVISION ny: e/d.vasqoes DEPUTY CLERK ISAIAH DEMARCUS GORDON, ) Plaintiff, Case No. 7:26CV00418

OPINION OFFICER CAMBELL, JUDGE JAMES P. JONES Defendant. Isaiah Demarcus Gordon, Pro Se Plaintiff. The plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, using a § 1983 complaint form, alleging that an officer used excessive force against him. The complaint form directed Gordon to provide the name and address of his current facility. Upon Gordon’s submission of his Complaint, on June 25, 2026, the court entered an Order conditionally filing the civil action pending satisfaction of certain requirements to be completed within thirty days. By the same Order, Gordan was directed to notify the court in writing immediately upon his transfer or release from his facility and provide a new address. He was warned that failure to notify the court of an address change would result in dismissal of the case. The Clerk mailed the June 25, 2026, Order to the address Gordon provided on his Complaint; however, the mailing was returned to the court on July 7, 2026, with

no forwarding address provided. The returned envelope included a stamp stating,

“NOT AT THIS FACILITY.” Mail. Ret., Dkt. No. 4. No further correspondence has been received from Gordan.

Without a current mailing address, the court cannot communicate with Gordon regarding next steps in the litigation and the matter is prevented from proceeding. Accordingly, the court concludes that Gordan may have lost interest in

prosecuting this action and will, therefore, dismiss it without prejudice. See Burrell v. Shirley, 142 F.4th 239, 249 (4th Cir. 2025) (providing that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides an explicit basis for courts to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders).

For these reasons, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice, and a separate Judgment will be entered. ENTER: August 4, 2026

/s/ JAMES P. JONES Senior United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NATHARRISONBURG, VA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA “aes ROANOKE DIVISION ny: e/d.vasqoes DEPUTY CLERK ISAIAH DEMARCUS GORDON, ) Plaintiff, Case No. 7:26CV00418

OPINION OFFICER CAMBELL, JUDGE JAMES P. JONES Defendant. Isaiah Demarcus Gordon, Pro Se Plaintiff. The plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, using a § 1983 complaint form, alleging that an officer used excessive force against him. The complaint form directed Gordon to provide the name and address of his current facility. Upon Gordon’s submission of his Complaint, on June 25, 2026, the court entered an Order conditionally filing the civil action pending satisfaction of certain requirements to be completed within thirty days. By the same Order, Gordan was directed to notify the court in writing immediately upon his transfer or release from his facility and provide a new address. He was warned that failure to notify the court of an address change would result in dismissal of the case. The Clerk mailed the June 25, 2026, Order to the address Gordon provided on his Complaint; however, the mailing was returned to the court on July 7, 2026, with

no forwarding address provided. The returned envelope included a stamp stating,

“NOT AT THIS FACILITY.” Mail. Ret., Dkt. No. 4. No further correspondence has been received from Gordan.

Without a current mailing address, the court cannot communicate with Gordon regarding next steps in the litigation and the matter is prevented from proceeding. Accordingly, the court concludes that Gordan may have lost interest in

prosecuting this action and will, therefore, dismiss it without prejudice. See Burrell v. Shirley, 142 F.4th 239, 249 (4th Cir. 2025) (providing that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides an explicit basis for courts to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders).

For these reasons, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice, and a separate Judgment will be entered. ENTER: August 4, 2026

/s/ JAMES P. JONES Senior United States District Judge

Isaiah Demarcus Gordon v. Officer Cambell, (W.D. Va. 2026).

Pincite

Isaiah Demarcus Gordon v. Officer Cambell (Isaiah Demarcus Gordon v. Officer Cambell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related