Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ellis v. Marietta, 09-6976 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-6976 Visitors: 19
Filed: Oct. 21, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6976 RONNIE JUNIOR ELLIS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DOCTOR MARIETTA, Primary Physician of R.R.J.; PETER OBER, P/A of R.R.J.; JANE OR JOHN DOE, R.R.J. rep. or Employee Responsible for Major Medical Decisions of Treatment; JANE OR JOHN DOE, Unknown Employee or Rep(s) of R.R.J. Responsible for Interferring with Ellis’ Access to Courts, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distric
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6976 RONNIE JUNIOR ELLIS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DOCTOR MARIETTA, Primary Physician of R.R.J.; PETER OBER, P/A of R.R.J.; JANE OR JOHN DOE, R.R.J. rep. or Employee Responsible for Major Medical Decisions of Treatment; JANE OR JOHN DOE, Unknown Employee or Rep(s) of R.R.J. Responsible for Interferring with Ellis’ Access to Courts, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00367-MSD-JEB) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Junior Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, COOK, KITTS & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie Junior Ellis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny his motion for discovery, deny his motion for a refund, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ellis v. Marietta, No. 2:07-cv-00367-MSD-JEB (E.D. Va. filed May 8, 2009; entered May 11, 2009). 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
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