Joseph Hatcher v. William York ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6997 Doc: 18 Filed: 04/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6997
JOSEPH HATCHER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM YORK, M.D.,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department Corrections,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00047-CMH-IDD)
Submitted: April 25, 2023 Decided: April 27, 2023
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6997 Doc: 18 Filed: 04/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
Joseph Hatcher, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Salvatore Cottone, BYRNE CANAAN LAW,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6997 Doc: 18 Filed: 04/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Hatcher appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Dr.
William York in Hatcher’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to
Hatcher’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and the magistrate
judge’s order denying Hatcher’s motion to appoint counsel. On appeal, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hatcher’s
informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s summary judgment
disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey,
775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under
Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). With respect
to the magistrate judge’s denial of Hatcher’s motion to appoint counsel, we have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Hatcher v. Clarke, No.
1:22-cv-00047-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2022; July 28, 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
3