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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 13-7442 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/24/2013 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7442 CURTIS RAY BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LIPTROT, Lieutenant/Supervisor; DR.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 13-7442 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/24/2013 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Curtis Ray Brooks appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his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?