Kenneth Awe v. Dr. Miller

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6444
KENNETH V. AWE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DOCTOR MILLER, ROSP M.D.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
HAROLD CLARKE, VDOC Director; RANDALL MATHENA, ROSP Warden,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:13-cv-00143-JLK-RSB)
Submitted: July 22, 2014 Decided: August 4, 2014
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth V. Awe, Appellant Pro Se. William Francis Demarest, III,
Mary Moffett Hutcheson Priddy, GOODMAN, ALLEN & FILETTI, PLLC,
Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Valentine Awe appeals the district court’s
order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Dr. Miller
on Awe’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claim of deliberate
indifference to his medical needs. For the reasons that follow,
we affirm.
On appeal, Awe challenges the denial of his requests
for copies of his full medical record to support his claim.
Insofar as he challenges the district court’s denial of
injunctive relief in the form of an order directing the Virginia
Department of Corrections to provide him with photocopying
loans, his argument is foreclosed by our prior opinion affirming
the district court’s order. Awe v. Miller, 553 F. App’x 307,
307-08 (4th Cir. 2014) (No. 13-7880); see L.J. v. Wilbon, 633
F.3d 297, 308 (4th Cir. 2011) (“The law of the case doctrine
posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that
decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent
stages of the same case.”).
Awe’s informal brief appears to challenge the district
court’s refusal to deny summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(d), as well as its grant of summary judgment in favor
of Miller. Because we have reviewed the record on appeal and
find no reversible error, we affirm as to these issues for the
reasons stated by the district court. Awe v. Miller, No.
3
7:13-cv-00143-JLK-RSB (W.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2014). Finally,
although Awe seeks review of the district court’s orders denying
his motions for counsel, we conclude Awe has forfeited appellate
review of these orders by failing to assert error in the
district court’s rulings. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting
appellate review to issues raised in informal brief).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We deny Awe’s motions for assignment of counsel. 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
4