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)
15-6574•John Joseph McPartlin v. ALTHEA ROACHE-MCDONALD, DMD-CDO Petersburg Correctional Complex
15-6574Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit21.12.2015
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6574
JOHN JOSEPH MCPARTLIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALTHEA ROACHE-MCDONALD, DMD-CDO Petersburg Correctional
Complex; PATRICIA STANSBERRY, Warden, Petersburg
Correctional Complex; MS. LEVISTER (JANE DOE), Assistant
Warden, Petersburg Correctional Complex,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
ERNEST PONRAJ, DDS Petersburg Correctional Complex,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00620-MSD-TEM)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Joseph McPartlin, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Lynn Van
Valkenburg, Susan Lynn Watt, Assistant United States Attorneys,
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
John Joseph McPartlin appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971), and the court’s subsequent order denying McPartlin’s
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See McPartlin v. Roache-McDonald, No. 2:11-cv-00620-MSD-
TEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2015 & Apr. 22, 2015). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.