# Khamari Hunter v. Trisha Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 19, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11124080

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 19, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11124080

## Opinion text

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6856 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/19/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6856

KHAMARI HUNTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TRISHA BROWN, Lieutenant; GABE MORGAN, Sergeant; GARRETT
ARMSTRONG, Sergeant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:24-cv-00942-RDA-WBP)

Submitted: April 2, 2025 Decided: August 19, 2025

Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Khamari Hunter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6856 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/19/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Khamari Hunter appeals the district court’s order dismissing Hunter’s 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint for failure to comply with a court order without prejudice to Hunter’s

right to refile his complaint. Although Hunter contends he filed the in forma pauperis

application as directed by the court, the court did not receive the application within the

time designated. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm the district court’s order. Hunter v. Brown, No. 1:24-cv-00942-RDA-WBP

(E.D. Va., Aug. 7, 2024). Hunter may refile his complaint, but we note that the statute of

limitations continues to run. 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11124080. Public record. Not legal advice.