Williams v. Mackling ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7143
    JOHN RUFFIN WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JERRY L. MACKLING; STEVEN BAILY, Police
    Officer;     L.   MARSHALL,      Sergeant,    Police
    Officer; S. J. THOMPSON, Sergeant, Police
    Officer; SERGEANT DEPOY, Corrections Officer;
    LIEUTENANT     WYNKOOP,     Corrections     Officer;
    COLONEL LAND, Corrections Officer Supervisor also
    known as Major Land; GLENN HILL, Sheriff, Corrections
    Officer Superintendent also known as Colonel Hill;
    NURSE JOSH, Corrections Facility Nurse on
    Duty; CARAL PRICE; SELWYN ADAMS, Dr., M.D.,
    Corrections Facility Physician; K. HAMLIN,
    Corrections      Facility      Unit     S-1    Nurse
    Supervisor; S. TAPPS, Corrections Facility Unit
    S-1 Grievance Coordinator; R. WOODSON, Corrections
    Facility Unit S-1 Grievance Coordinator,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (2:07-cv-00147-RBS)
    Submitted:    December 20, 2007             Decided:    December 27, 2007
    Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John Ruffin Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    John Ruffin Williams appeals the district court’s order
    dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
    § 1915A(b)(1) (2000) for failure to state a claim.                  We have
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.          Accordingly, we
    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, Williams v.
    Mackling,   No.   2:07-cv-147   (E.D.    Va.   Jul   2,   2007),   and   deny
    Williams’ motion for judgment, in which he reargues the merits of
    his claims.   We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7143

Filed Date: 12/27/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021