Curtis Brooks, Jr. v. Sergeant Liptrot
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01405-LMB-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999266153]. Mailed to: Curtis Brooks. [13-7442]
Appeal: 13-7442
Doc: 13
Filed: 12/24/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7442
CURTIS RAY BROOKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIPTROT, Lieutenant/Supervisor; DR. NICHOLS, Psychiatrist,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
T. L. BIRKHEAD, Program Supervisor; T. JOHNSON, Correctional
Officer; R. CLARY, Evidence Based Practice-Manager; WENDY S.
HOBBS,
Regional
Administrator;
K.
S.
TURNER,
Lieutenant/Supervisor,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01405-LMB-JFA)
Submitted:
December 19, 2013
Decided:
December 24, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Ray Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.
John Michael Parsons,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Isaac Abraham
McBeth, Edward J. McNelis, III, RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC,
Appeal: 13-7442
Doc: 13
Filed: 12/24/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 13-7442
Doc: 13
Filed: 12/24/2013
Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Ray Brooks 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.
Brooks v. Liptrot, No. 1:12-cv-01405-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va.
filed Aug. 21, 2013; entered Aug. 22, 2013).
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with
contentions
this
court
are
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
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?