James Campbell v. Rappahanock Regional Jail

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2023
• Docket: 23-6000
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6000 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6000

JAMES CODY CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RAPPAHANOCK REGIONAL JAIL,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-01376-TSE-LRV)

Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Cody Campbell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6000 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

James Cody Campbell appeals the district court’s order dismissing without

prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to notify the court of a change in his

address. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to

prosecute. See Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 625 (4th Cir. 2019). Our review of the

record reveals that, although the district court’s December 5, 2022, order was returned

without delivery to Campbell, it does not appear that Campbell failed to provide the court

with his correct, current address. The record does not reveal why the district court’s order

was returned as undeliverable, but Campbell has since sent and received documents at the

mailing address he provided in his complaint, and maintains that his address did not

change. Because it is not clear that Campbell failed to update his address with the court,

we conclude that the dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion. See Scott v. Fam. Dollar

Stores, Inc., 733 F.3d 105, 112 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that a “district court abuses its

discretion by resting its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of a material fact” (internal

quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order dismissing Campbell’s complaint

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