Opinion
No. 18-1405
11-08-2018
LENIR RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN HANCQ, Officer; CAROLYN NEY, Officer; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; JOSEPH MARTIN; HSBC BANK OF USA, N.A.; BB&B BANK; BB&T TRUST CORP. SYSTEM; AMANDA DEPTULA, Officer, Defendants - Appellees.
Lenir Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. George Arthur McAndrews, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Sherry A. Fox, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia; Alan Durrum Wingfield, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00053-AJT-TCB) Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lenir Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. George Arthur McAndrews, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Sherry A. Fox, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia; Alan Durrum Wingfield, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Lenir Richardson appeals the district court's judgment dismissing her complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and for failing to respond to the order to show cause. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district court did not abuse its discretion by not giving Richardson leave to amend her complaint. Willner v. Dimon, 849 F.3d 93, 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (finding no abuse of discretion when district court did not respond to Plaintiffs' requests to amend complaint). We conclude that Richardson failed to state a claim against any of the Defendants. Trejo v. Ryman Hosp. Props., Inc., 795 F.3d 442, 445-46 (4th Cir. 2015) (stating standard of review). While we grant Richardson leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court's judgment. We deny Joseph Martin's motion to dismiss and deny as moot Richardson's motion in opposition to the motion to dismiss. 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