Keon Hill v. Carter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999080156-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00656-TSE-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999138053]. Mailed to: Keon S. Hill. [13-6400]

Appeal: 13-6400

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/26/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6400

KEON S. HILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CARTER, Officer/ Petersburg Police Officer,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
EVANS, Nurse; ABASHI, Dr. Chief Doctor at Riverside Jail;
CYRIAX, Ms. Chief Physican Medical Dept; RIVERSIDE REGIONAL
JAIL, Jail Body/ Unknown Name Officers; J. L. NEWTON, Supt.
Captain of the Jail Authority and Policy; MACK, Capt.
Captain of Administration; PETERSBURG JAIL PERSONNEL, City
Jail; CLARK-EVANS, Nurse/Shift Nurse; CHARLES, Ms. Chief
Nurse of Medical Dept,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00656-TSE-TRJ)

Submitted:

June 20, 2013

Decided:

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

June 26, 2013

Appeal: 13-6400

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/26/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Keon S. Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Leslie A. Winneberger, BEALE,
DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & MORRIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-6400

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/26/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Keon

S.

Hill

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Hill

v.

Carter,

Feb. 27, 2013).
we

dispense

contentions

1:12-cv-00656-TSE-TRJ

(E.D.

Va.

We deny Hills’ motions to appoint counsel, and

with
are

No.

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3