Filed: Dec. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1570 GEORGE H. SEYMOUR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. ANDREW REESE, M.D., Individually and in his capacity as Medical Director of the Pamunkey Regional Jail, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-687-3) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1570 GEORGE H. SEYMOUR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. ANDREW REESE, M.D., Individually and in his capacity as Medical Director of the Pamunkey Regional Jail, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-687-3) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIA..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1570 GEORGE H. SEYMOUR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. ANDREW REESE, M.D., Individually and in his capacity as Medical Director of the Pamunkey Regional Jail, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-687-3) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott Gregory Crowley, CROWLEY & CROWLEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Lynne Jones Blain, Jeremy D. Capps, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: George H. Seymour appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in this 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) action in which Seymour asserted that the Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Seymour v. Reese, No. CA-00-687-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2001). 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