Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. B. Janek, 12-7908 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-7908 Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 09, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7908 CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. B. S. JANEK, DMD, Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center, Defendant – Appellee, and PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; LINDA RAY, Ms., Head Nurse, Powhatan Correctional Center; L. KUMP, Ms., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; A. TONEY, Mr., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; FRED SCHILLINGS, Dr., Health Service Director, VDOC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7908 CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. B. S. JANEK, DMD, Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center, Defendant – Appellee, and PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; LINDA RAY, Ms., Head Nurse, Powhatan Correctional Center; L. KUMP, Ms., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; A. TONEY, Mr., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; FRED SCHILLINGS, Dr., Health Service Director, VDOC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00408-HEH) Submitted: March 19, 2013 Decided: April 9, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Roulhac, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Clarence Roulhac, Jr., appeals the district court’s judgment denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Roulhac v. Janek, No. 3:10-cv-00408-HEH (E.D. Va. Dec. 23, 2011 & Feb. 16, 2012 & Oct. 9, 2012). We deny Roulhac’s motion to compel Defendants to provide dental care. 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