Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thomas Littek v. Harold Clarke, 16-6703 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-6703 Visitors: 34
Filed: Oct. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6703 THOMAS ANTHONY LITTEK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VDOC; FREDERICK SCHILLING, VDOC’s Medical Director; STANLEY YOUNG, Warden at PSCC; ADAM K. WYATT, Defendants – Appellees, and ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Corporation contracted to provide medical and dental services to VDOC, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6703 THOMAS ANTHONY LITTEK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VDOC; FREDERICK SCHILLING, VDOC’s Medical Director; STANLEY YOUNG, Warden at PSCC; ADAM K. WYATT, Defendants – Appellees, and ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Corporation contracted to provide medical and dental services to VDOC, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:16-cv-00072-JLK-PMS) Submitted: September 20, 2016 Decided: October 12, 2016 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Anthony Littek, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Anthony Littek appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Littek v. Clarke, No. 7:16-cv-00072-JLK-PMS (W.D. Va. May 9, 2016). 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 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