Filed: Mar. 20, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7217 TERRY RAMMOTT WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. W. ANDREW REESE, Doctor, Defendant – Appellee, and DIANA PURKS, Medical Coordinator; DR. KREK, Psychologist; MAJOR ELLIOT, Chief Security, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00248-RAJ-JEB) Submitted: March 9, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7217 TERRY RAMMOTT WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. W. ANDREW REESE, Doctor, Defendant – Appellee, and DIANA PURKS, Medical Coordinator; DR. KREK, Psychologist; MAJOR ELLIOT, Chief Security, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00248-RAJ-JEB) Submitted: March 9, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7217 TERRY RAMMOTT WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. W. ANDREW REESE, Doctor, Defendant – Appellee, and DIANA PURKS, Medical Coordinator; DR. KREK, Psychologist; MAJOR ELLIOT, Chief Security, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00248-RAJ-JEB) Submitted: March 9, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry Rammott Walker, Appellant Pro Se. John David McChesney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terry Rammott Walker appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Walker v. Purks, No. 2:06-cv-00248-RAJ-JEB (E.D. Va. June 16, 2008). 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
