Tyreek Davis v. A. Wright

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1816 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1816 TYREEK DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. A.J. WRIGHT, in his individual and official capacity as an Officer for Fairfax County; E. BRANDOLINO, Sgt. in his individual and official capacity as a sergeant for Fairfax County; FILONI, In his individual and official capacity as Detective for Fairfax; MCGRADY, in her individual and official capacity as an officer for PFC (police officer) for Fairfax County; CANTY, in his individual and official capacity as a Detective for Fairfax County; JOHN DOE, in his individual and official capacity as an agent/informant for the Richmond Virginia FBI field office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:24-cv-00783-LMB-WBP) Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: March 31, 2025 Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyreek Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1816 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Tyreek Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). * We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. In his complaint, as the district court found, Davis made conclusory allegations, cited inapplicable federal laws, and sought relief that could not be granted. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Davis v. Wright, No. 1:24-cv-00783- LMB-WBP (E.D. Va. June 17, 2024). 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 district court’s order of dismissal without prejudice is a final, appealable order because the court did not grant Davis leave to amend. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc). 2