Robert Dougherty v. Dana Lawhorne, No. 19-7835 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7835 ROBERT W. DOUGHERTY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DANA LAWHORNE, Sheriff, Alexandria Adult Detention Center; SCHULER, Chief Deputy (Major), Alexandria Adult Detention Center; SERGEANT HALL, Alexandria Adult Detention Center; SERGEANT MENSAH, Alexandria Adult Detention Center (Law Library); DEPUTY ANDERSON, Alexandria Adult Detention Center (Mailroom); IVAN T. GILMORE, Warden, Coffeewood Correctional Center; DONALD GOURDINE, Inst. Program Dir. and Inst. Classification, Coffeewood Correctional Center; MAJOR M. BRYANT, Chief of Security and Institutional Review Officer (Discipline), Coffeewood Correctional Center; C. A. WARD, Chief of Security and Institutional Review Officer (Discipline), Coffeewood Correctional Center; ANITA B. LONG, (Captain) Unit Manager Coffeewood Correctional Center; CAPTAIN S. A. JONES, Watch Commander, Grievance Hearing Officer, and Institutional Review-Discipline; LIEUTENANT BRICE, Unit Lieutenant (retired), Coffeewood Correctional Center; L. P. JONES, (Lieutenant) Unit Manager, Coffeewood Correctional Center; LIEUTENANT R. GALLAGHER, Unit Lieutenant, Coffeewood Correctional Center; LIEUTENANT M. S. MILLER, Custody, Shift Supervisor, Coffeewood Correctional Center; SERGEANT R. LEWIS, Custody, Hearing Officer, Coffeewood Correctional Center; D. P. SACRA, Sergeant, Custody, Coffeewood Correctional Center; SERGEANT MONROE, Custody, Coffeewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL WALTER, Coffeewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL JENKINS, Coffeewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL ROCHES, Coffeewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL HENSLEY, Coffeewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL POWELL, Former Mail Room Officer, Coffeewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL NEWCOMB, Coffeewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL HEFRIGHT, Coffeewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL F. O. ALASBARRIENTOS, Coffeewood Correctional Center; T. L. CRICKEMBERGER, Hearing Officer (of record), Coffeewood Correctional Center; M.S. KIMBERLY TUCKER, Grievance Officer, Coffeewood Correctional Center; MS. P. C. ZWIGART, Secretary to Warden Gilmore, Coffeewood Correctional Center; MS. PEGGY TATRO, Administrator, Mediko Correctional Healthcare (contracted provider), Coffeewood Correctional Center; MS. S. COOPER, Treatment and Law Library, Coffeewood Correctional Center; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Corrections Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections; WENDY S. HOBBS, Regional Administrator Grievances, Virginia Department of Corrections; MARCUS M. HODGES, Regional Administrator, Virginia Department of Corrections; KAREN L. STAPLETON, Offender Discipline Manager, Virginia Department of Corrections; KAREN D. BROWN, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; HELEN W. MORTON, Hearing Officer, Virginia Parole Board; HELEN W. HALL-GREEN, Hearing Officer, Virginia Parole Board; IRIS STALLWORTH, District 29-Fairfax, Virginia Parole Board; MINIAR F. STONE, Parole Board Member, Virginia Parole Board; B. J. HICE, Hearing Officer, Virginia Parole Board; SERGEANT D. P. HAPPE, Custody, Coffeewood Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00302-LO-IDD) Submitted: April 3, 2020 Decided: April 16, 2020 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert W. Dougherty, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Robert W. Dougherty appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for failing to comply with a court order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dougherty v. Lawhorne, No. 1:17-cv-00302-LOIDD (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 4, 2019 & entered Dec. 6, 2019). 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 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.
