Filed: Apr. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6043 EUGENE PAUL JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STAMPER, Correctional Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00352-AJT-IDD) Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 22, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Paul Jones, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6043 EUGENE PAUL JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STAMPER, Correctional Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00352-AJT-IDD) Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 22, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Paul Jones, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6043
EUGENE PAUL JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STAMPER, Correctional Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00352-AJT-IDD)
Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 22, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Paul Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Maurice Scott Fisher, Jr.,
HARMON, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Paul Jones appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and
denying his motion for examination by an outside physician. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Jones v. Stamper, No. 1:12-cv-00352-AJT-IDD (E.D.
Va. Mar. 25, 2013 & Dec. 9, 2013). 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