Joseph A. Daniels v. Paul E. Caldwell
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999302260-2], denying Motion for other relief [999298352-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999286744-3] Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00461-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999345965]. Mailed to: Daniels. [14-6015]
Appeal: 14-6015
Doc: 20
Filed: 04/29/2014
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6015
JOSEPH A. DANIELS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PAUL E. CALDWELL,
Richmond, Virginia,
Medical
Doctor,
St.
Mary’s
Hospital,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00461-REP)
Submitted:
April 24, 2014
Decided:
April 29, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph A. Daniels, Appellant Pro Se.
Kelly Street Brown,
Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-6015
Doc: 20
Filed: 04/29/2014
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Joseph A. Daniels appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012).
reversible
appoint
error.
We have reviewed the record and find no
Accordingly,
counsel,
for
a
jury
we
deny
trial,
Daniels’
and
for
motions
a
to
physical
examination, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
Daniels v. Caldwell, No. 3:11-cv-00461-REP (E.D. Va.
Dec. 18, 2013).
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
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?