Karsten Allen v. B. Sater, No. 22-6930 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6930 KARSTEN O. ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER B. SATER; SERGEANT E. J. DALES; OFFICER B. VIARS; UNIT MANAGER CHARLOTTE SHELTON; ROBERT WHITT, Chief of Housing and Programs; ASSISTANT WARDEN KEVIN MCCOY; OFFICER R. DANIELS; OFFICER J. MATNEY; OFFICER B. HURLEY; OFFICER HESS; SERGEANT MCCOWAN; T. LOWE, Institutional Hearings Officer; UNIT MANAGER LARRY FIELDS; WARDEN RODNEY YOUNCE; CARL MANIS, Regional Administrator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (7:21-cv-00230-PMS) Submitted: April 20, 2023 Decided: April 24, 2023 Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karsten Obed Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Karsten O. Allen, a Virginia inmate, appeals the magistrate judge’s order 1 dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 2 We have reviewed the record de novo and identified no error in the magistrate judge granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Mays v. Sprinkle, 992 F.3d 295, 299 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s dismissal order. Allen v. Sater, No. 7:21-cv-00230-PMS (W.D. Va. July 19, 2022). 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 The parties consented to jurisdiction before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. 1 Although the magistrate judge dismissed Allen’s complaint without prejudice, we conclude that the dismissal order is final and appealable. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (published order). 2 2

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.