Lopez v. Young ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6747
JOSE LOPEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
S. K. YOUNG, Warden; RICHARD PHILLIPS; D.
GREER, a/k/a Officer D. Greer, a/k/a Greek;
SERGEANT BURTIN; LIEUTENANT RAYNOLDS, a/k/a
Lieutenant Reynolds; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
KING; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BUCHANAN; MAJOR
YATES; COUNSELOR YEARY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
BELLAMY; SERGEANT COLLINS; MICHAEL FLEMING,
Correctional Officer, a/k/a Correctional
Officer Fleming; TOMMY JACKSON, Correctional
Officer, a/k/a Correctional Officer Jackson;
PAUL OHAI, MD, a/k/a Doctor Ohai; TAMMY
THOMAS, Nurse, a/k/a R.N. Ms. Thomas; DONNIE
LESTER, Lieutenant, a/k/a Lieutenant Lester;
SERGEANT BENTLEY; SERGEANT ANDERSON; F.
WILLIS, Investigator; TERESA L. JOHNSON, a/k/a
Medical Director T. Johnson; MR. PHILIPS,
Assistant Warden of Programs; MS. BAKER,
Counselor; KENNETH SLATER, MD, a/k/a Doctor
Slater; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLILEY; BRIAN
KISER, a/k/a Correctional Officer Kiser; R. A.
YOUNG, Regional Director,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SHERRY STAFFORD, Nurse; VICKY HARPER, Nurse,
a/k/a Nurse Harper; MS. MCCURRY, R.N.; MS.
BERRY, R.N.; DOCTOR SMITH; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT;
GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT; INSTITUTIONAL
ADMINISTRATORS, Wallens Ridge State Prison;
MS. MULLINS, R.N.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-876)
Submitted: October 18, 2005 Decided: October 20, 2005
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Edward Joseph McNelis, III,
John David McChesney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jose Lopez appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lopez v. Young,
No. CA-01-876 (W.D. Va. filed Mar. 30, 2005; entered Mar. 31,
2005). 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 -