Johnathan Smith v. Lawrence Wang , 452 F. App'x 292 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-6291
    JOHNATHAN LEE SMITH, a/k/a Johnathan Lee X Smith,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    LAWRENCE WANG, M.D.; VCU HEALTH SYSTEM; MCV HOSPITALS AND
    PHYSICIANS; MICHAEL C. KURZ, M.D.; DEBORAH KLEIMAN; DHIREN
    E. KUMAR, M.D.; JENNY O. SMITH, M.D.; VELMIR A. LUKETIC,
    M.D.; SUBHASH A. NANIWADEKAR, M.D.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.  Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (7:09-cv-00462-sgw-mfu)
    Submitted:   October 13, 2011             Decided:   November 4, 2011
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Johnathan Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se.        Joseph Michael
    Rainsbury, Nancy Fuller Reynolds, LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Roanoke,
    Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Johnathan Lee Smith appeals the district court’s order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, finding he
    was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury, denying
    his application to proceed under the PLRA without prepayment of
    the filing fees and dismissing his civil rights complaint.                          We
    have     reviewed       the    record    and     find    no    reversible       error.
    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
    court.       Smith v. Wang, No. 7:09-cv-00462-sgw-mfu (W.D. Va., Jan.
    31, 2011).        Because the Defendants challenged Smith’s assertion
    that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury,
    for    the    purpose    of    seeking   leave    to    proceed   under    the    PLRA
    without prepayment of fees, there was no error in the magistrate
    judge’s decision to have an evidentiary hearing on the issue.
    See Taylor v. Watkins, 
    623 F.3d 483
    , 485 (7th Cir. 2010).                           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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-6291

Citation Numbers: 452 F. App'x 292

Judges: Motz, King, Duncan

Filed Date: 11/4/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024