Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Thomas v. Commonwealth of VA, 05-6912 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-6912 Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 21, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6912 ROY ALLEN THOMAS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; T. RAY, Warden; T. ADAMS, Sgt.; G. CHILDRESS, Sgt.; SERGEANT DAY; SERGEANT FLEMING; MCMULLINS, Sergeant; OFFICER LAMBERT; OFFICER SMITH; GREERE, Officer; D. MCNIGHT, Food Services; HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR; WEBB, Officer; DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R. FLEMING, Major; NURSE ADAMS; NURSE MULLINS; SAM BOYD, Officer; FOOD SERVICES DI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6912 ROY ALLEN THOMAS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; T. RAY, Warden; T. ADAMS, Sgt.; G. CHILDRESS, Sgt.; SERGEANT DAY; SERGEANT FLEMING; MCMULLINS, Sergeant; OFFICER LAMBERT; OFFICER SMITH; GREERE, Officer; D. MCNIGHT, Food Services; HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR; WEBB, Officer; DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R. FLEMING, Major; NURSE ADAMS; NURSE MULLINS; SAM BOYD, Officer; FOOD SERVICES DIRECTOR; DR. WILLIAMS; GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT; L. HALL, Officer; ASSISTANT UNIT MANAGER HORN, Officer; WARDEN ARMENTROUT, Assistant; MAILROOM STAFF, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-05-232-7) Submitted: October 26, 2005 Decided: November 21, 2005 Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Allen Thomas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Roy Allen Thomas, Jr. appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action, alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs, for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Thomas v. Virginia, No. CA-05-232-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 22, 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer