Norman Rattliff, Jr. v. Gerald McPeak


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998352133-2] Originating case number: 7:08-cv-00551-gec-mfu Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998490715] [09-7645]

Download PDF
Norman Rattliff, Jr. v. Gerald McPeak Doc. 0 Case: 09-7645 Document: 17 Date Filed: 12/23/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7645 NORMAN RATTLIFF, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GERALD MCPEAK, Superintendent, New River Valley Regional Jail; N. H. PELKINS, Correctional Officer Supervisor, New River Valley Regional Jail; JOHN DOE, JR., Primary Care Physician, New River Valley Regional Jail, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:08-cv-00551-gec-mfu) Submitted: December 8, 2010 Decided: December 23, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman Rattliff, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 09-7645 Document: 17 Date Filed: 12/23/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Norman Rattliff, Jr., appeals the district court's orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1) (2006), for failure to state a claim, and denying reconsideration of that order. record and find no reversible error. the reasons stated by the district We have reviewed the Accordingly, we affirm for court. See Rattliff v. McPeak, No. 7:08-cv-00551-gec-mfu (W.D. Va. Dec. 31, 2008 & Mar. 19, 2009). Further, we deny Rattliff's motion for the appointment of counsel. 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 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?