Filed: Aug. 29, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6730 JOSEPH LOUIS MCCOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHELLE MITCHELL, Sheriff; LIEUTENANT WILKINS, Medical Supervisor; DEPUTY FORD, Nurse; DEPUTY SMITH, Nurse; DOCTOR CHANG, MD; DEPUTY ANDERSON, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00126-TSE) Submitted: August 18, 2006 Decided: August 29
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6730 JOSEPH LOUIS MCCOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHELLE MITCHELL, Sheriff; LIEUTENANT WILKINS, Medical Supervisor; DEPUTY FORD, Nurse; DEPUTY SMITH, Nurse; DOCTOR CHANG, MD; DEPUTY ANDERSON, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00126-TSE) Submitted: August 18, 2006 Decided: August 29,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6730 JOSEPH LOUIS MCCOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHELLE MITCHELL, Sheriff; LIEUTENANT WILKINS, Medical Supervisor; DEPUTY FORD, Nurse; DEPUTY SMITH, Nurse; DOCTOR CHANG, MD; DEPUTY ANDERSON, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00126-TSE) Submitted: August 18, 2006 Decided: August 29, 2006 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Louis McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph Louis McCoy appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action, alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs, for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McCoy v. Mitchell, No. 1:06-cv-00126-TSE (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 3, 2006 & entered Apr. 4, 2006). 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 -