Tyrone Wallace v. Lieutenant Moody, No. 21-7207 (4th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-7207 TYRONE R. WALLACE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LIEUTENANT MOODY, Transportation Officer, Defendant - Appellee, and OFFICER N. HENNING, Unit Officer; CAPTAIN GILLIAN; CAPTAIN YOUNG; F.C.I. Gilmer Captain; S.T.S LIEUTENANT ERVING; LIEUTENANT GRUNDY; LIEUTENANT TOODLE, (SHU) Special Housing Unit; (SHU) OFFICER S. LEGG; (SHU) OFFICER GAINER; MS. POSSE, (SHU) Health Service Medical Nurse; MS. LANDER, Unit Manager; JOHN DOE, Lieutenant-Compound Officer; THE RESPONSE TEAM, Defendants. No. 22-6048 TYRONE R. WALLACE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERVING; GAINER; LIEUTENANT GRUNDY; LANDERS, Unit Manager; SERGEANT GILLIAN; N. HENNING, Unit Officer; MS. POSSE, (SHU) Health Service Medical Nurse; CAPTAIN YOUNG, F.C.I. Gilmer Captain; OFFICER S. LEGG; LIEUTENANT TOODLE, (SHU) Special Housing Unit, Defendants - Appellees, and LIEUTENANT MOODY, Transportation Officer; JOHN DOE, Lieutenant compound officer; THE RESPONSE TEAM, Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:18-cv-00049-GMG-RWT) Submitted: March 24, 2022 Decided: March 28, 2022 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone R. Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Tyrone R. Wallace appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wallace v. Henning, No. 3:18-cv-00049-GMG-RWT (N.D.W. Va. July 28, 2021; Sept. 2, 2021; Sept. 24, 2021). However, we modify the district court’s July 28, 2021, dismissal order to clarify that Wallace’s claim is dismissed without prejudice. See Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 628 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that district court’s dismissal for lack of service must be without prejudice because “a court generally lacks personal jurisdiction over unserved parties”). We deny Wallace’s motion for relief from judgment. 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 AS MODIFIED 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.