Tashawn Thorne v. Officer Wesley, No. 17-7039 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7039 TASHAWN THORNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER WESLEY, Piedmont Correctional Officer; OFFICER SHERWIN, Piedmont Regional Jail; OFFICER BOOKER, Piedmont Regional Jail Officer; OFFICER MANNS; OFFICER EVANS; OFFICER NEWCUM; OFFICER STOKES, Defendants - Appellees, and MS. BOWEN, Mental Health; MS. L. SMITH, Medical Nurse; MRS. SERGEANT TISDALE, Grievance Coordinator; MR. TISDALE, Lieutenant; MS. ROBENSON, Sergeant; OFFICER WOLFER; MAJOR PEW; CAPTAIN WALKER; OFFICER LANGSTON; PIEDMONT REGIONAL JAIL, Private Jail; VIRGINIA, Commonwealth of Virginia; RAYMOND RIDLEY, Lieutenant; LANAY WALKER, Captain; TERRY SCOTT, Captain; STEVE AGNEW, Major; ROBERT PUGH, Major; DONALD HUNTER, Superintendent; CHARLES SAMMUEL, JR., FBOP Director; LORETTA LYNCH, Attorney General; DR. MARINO, Doctor at Piedmont Regional Jail; MARY T. JONES, Nurse; CAPTAIN SILAS BLANTON, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00722-AJT-JFA) Submitted: January 31, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tashawn Qwantreal Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Tashawn Qwantreal Thorne appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s order to explain his alleged violation of a consent order to withdraw money from his inmate trust account. * We conclude that Thorne’s response, which the district court understandably docketed as a notice of appeal, actually is an explanation in compliance with the court’s order. We therefore vacate the district court’s dismissal order and remand the case for the district court to consider Thorne’s explanation in the first instance and to conduct further proceedings as necessary. We deny Thorne’s motions for default judgment, for discovery, for appointment of counsel, and to compel. 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 * The district court’s dismissal without prejudice on procedural grounds is final and appealable. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015). 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.