Filed: Oct. 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7052 AARON BATTLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL BOGENT, Doctor; DOCTOR HASKETTES; NURSE HARRIS; NURSE HOUSE, Defendants - Appellees, and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-277-3) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7052 AARON BATTLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL BOGENT, Doctor; DOCTOR HASKETTES; NURSE HARRIS; NURSE HOUSE, Defendants - Appellees, and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-277-3) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circui..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7052 AARON BATTLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL BOGENT, Doctor; DOCTOR HASKETTES; NURSE HARRIS; NURSE HOUSE, Defendants - Appellees, and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-277-3) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Battle, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Samuel Samet, GOODMAN, ALLEN & FILETTI, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Aaron Battle 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 Battle v. Bogent, No. CA-03-277-3 (E.D. Va. May 20, 2004). 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 -
