Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
05-6912•Roy Allen Thomas, Jr v. Commonwealth of Virginia
05-6912Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit21.11.2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6912
ROY ALLEN THOMAS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; T. RAY, Warden; T.
ADAMS, Sgt.; G. CHILDRESS, Sgt.; SERGEANT DAY;
SERGEANT FLEMING; MCMULLINS, Sergeant; OFFICER
LAMBERT; OFFICER SMITH; GREERE, Officer; D.
MCNIGHT, Food Services; HEALTH SERVICES
DIRECTOR; WEBB, Officer; DIRECTOR OF
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R. FLEMING, Major;
NURSE ADAMS; NURSE MULLINS; SAM BOYD, Officer;
FOOD SERVICES DIRECTOR; DR. WILLIAMS;
GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT; L. HALL, Officer;
ASSISTANT UNIT MANAGER HORN, Officer; WARDEN
ARMENTROUT, Assistant; MAILROOM STAFF,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CA-05-232-7)
Submitted: October 26, 2005 Decided: November 21, 2005
Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roy Allen Thomas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Roy Allen Thomas, Jr. 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)(1) (2000). We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Thomas v. Virginia, No. CA-05-232-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 22,
2005). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.