Filed: Mar. 15, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7774 ARTHUR LEE SANFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. N. KOLONGO, Physician; VALARIE A. GASKINS, Infectous Disease Nurse; L. PETTY, Nurse/RN, Defendants – Appellees, and ROY W. CHERRY, Superintendent; FIRST MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00348-LMB-JFA) Submitted: February 26, 2013
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7774 ARTHUR LEE SANFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. N. KOLONGO, Physician; VALARIE A. GASKINS, Infectous Disease Nurse; L. PETTY, Nurse/RN, Defendants – Appellees, and ROY W. CHERRY, Superintendent; FIRST MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00348-LMB-JFA) Submitted: February 26, 2013 D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7774 ARTHUR LEE SANFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. N. KOLONGO, Physician; VALARIE A. GASKINS, Infectous Disease Nurse; L. PETTY, Nurse/RN, Defendants – Appellees, and ROY W. CHERRY, Superintendent; FIRST MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00348-LMB-JFA) Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 15, 2013 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Sanford, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Abrams, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Sanford 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. See Sanford v. Cherry, No. 1:11-cv-00348-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2012). 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 2
