The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
12-7791•Kenneth Sweeting v. M. STANFORD, Head Nurse; DR. REPKO, Optometrist (eye doctor); DR. THOMPSON, Head Doctor
12-7791Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 3, 2013
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7791
KENNETH SWEETING,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
M. STANFORD, Head Nurse; DR. REPKO, Optometrist (eye
doctor); DR. THOMPSON, Head Doctor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00334-NKM-RSB)
Submitted: March 14, 2013 Decided: April 3, 2013
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Sweeting, Appellant Pro Se. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY
LAW FIRM, PC, Dillwyn, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM
Kenneth Sweeting 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 deny Sweeting’s motions to appoint counsel and
to compel return of legal materials and affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Sweeting v. M. Stanford, No.
7:11-cv-00334-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Sept. 25, 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.