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)
16-6524•Audrel Jack Watson, Jr. v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections
16-6524Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 21, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6524
AUDREL JACK WATSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections;
WARDEN WRIGHT, Warden-Lawrenceville Corrections Center; MS.
GOODE, Medical Administrator; MS. HIGHTOWER, Director of
Nursing; G. BOWLES, Dr., Dentist; MS. MORELLE, Dental
Assistant; UNKNOWN NURSE #1; UNKNOWN NURSE #2,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:14-cv-01315-GBL-MSN)
Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Audrel Jack Watson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon
Matheson, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Audrel Jack Watson, Jr., appeals the district court’s
orders dismissing several Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
(2012), denying reconsideration, and granting Defendant Bowles’
motion for summary judgment in Watson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Watson v. Clarke, No. 1:14-cv-01315-GBL-MSN
(E.D. Va. filed June 2, 2015, & entered June 3, 2015; July 1,
2015; Mar. 24, 2016). We deny Watson’s motion for transcripts
at government expense. 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.