Ophelia De'Lonta v. Sarah Pruitt, No. 13-7307 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7307 OPHELIA AZRIEL DE LONTA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SARAH PRUITT, Correctional Officer, Defendant - Appellee, and HAROLD CLARKE, Director, VADOC; G. K. WASHINGTON, Regional Admin; LARRY EDMONDS, Warden, BKCC; C. DAVIS, Major, Chief of Security; DAVIS, Institutional Investigator; AGENT WATSON, Internal Affairs Unit; LISA LANG, Staff Psychologist; ATTORNEY GENERAL KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI; DON LEMOND, Director, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:11-cv-00483-JCT-RSB) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. December 23, 2013 Ophelia Azriel De Lonta, Appellant Pro Se. Antonio Pierre Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF A. PIERRE JACKSON, P.C., Hampden-Sydney, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Ophelia Azriel De Lonta appeals the jury verdict in favor of Defendant Sarah Pruitt and the district court s prior order granting the other Defendants motion for summary judgment in De Lonta s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. * De Lonta v. Pruitt, No. 7:11-cv-00483-JCT-RSB (W.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2012; July 18, 2013). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED * We note that the only issue De Lonta raises with respect to the jury trial is Pruitt s failure to timely respond to De Lonta s revised motion to compel production of documents. We find no reversible error in this regard. 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.