Filed: Jun. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6161 PURNELL REW, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ROSE WHITE, RN; M. L. JOHNSON, RN; BONITA BADGETT, RN Coordinator; KEITH DAVIS, Warden, Defendants – Appellees, and DEERFIELD MEDICAL DEPT., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-01291-JCC-JFA) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, N
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6161 PURNELL REW, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ROSE WHITE, RN; M. L. JOHNSON, RN; BONITA BADGETT, RN Coordinator; KEITH DAVIS, Warden, Defendants – Appellees, and DEERFIELD MEDICAL DEPT., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-01291-JCC-JFA) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NI..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6161 PURNELL REW, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ROSE WHITE, RN; M. L. JOHNSON, RN; BONITA BADGETT, RN Coordinator; KEITH DAVIS, Warden, Defendants – Appellees, and DEERFIELD MEDICAL DEPT., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-01291-JCC-JFA) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Purnell Rew, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Purnell Rew 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 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rew v. White, No. 1:11-cv-01291-JCC-JFA (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2012). 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
