Kenneth Awe v. Dr. Miller

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999334885-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999322658-2] Originating case number: 7:13-cv-00143-JLK-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999408907]. Mailed to: Awe. [14-6444]

Appeal: 14-6444

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6444

KENNETH V. AWE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DOCTOR MILLER, ROSP M.D.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
HAROLD CLARKE, VDOC Director; RANDALL MATHENA, ROSP Warden,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:13-cv-00143-JLK-RSB)

Submitted:

July 22, 2014

Decided:

August 4, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth V. Awe, Appellant Pro Se. William Francis Demarest, III,
Mary Moffett Hutcheson Priddy, GOODMAN, ALLEN & FILETTI, PLLC,
Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellee.

Appeal: 14-6444

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-6444

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

Valentine

appeals

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth

Awe

the

district

court’s

order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Dr. Miller
on

Awe’s

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2012)

indifference to his medical needs.

claim

of

deliberate

For the reasons that follow,

we affirm.
On appeal, Awe challenges the denial of his requests
for copies of his full medical record to support his claim.
Insofar

as

he

challenges

the

district

court’s

denial

of

injunctive relief in the form of an order directing the Virginia
Department

of

Corrections

to

provide

him

with

photocopying

loans, his argument is foreclosed by our prior opinion affirming
the district court’s order.

Awe v. Miller, 553 F. App’x 307,

307-08 (4th Cir. 2014) (No. 13-7880); see L.J. v. Wilbon, 633
F.3d 297, 308 (4th Cir. 2011) (“The law of the case doctrine
posits

that

when

a

court

decides

upon

a

rule

of

law,

that

decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent
stages of the same case.”).
Awe’s informal brief appears to challenge the district
court’s refusal to deny summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(d), as well as its grant of summary judgment in favor
of Miller.

Because we have reviewed the record on appeal and

find no reversible error, we affirm as to these issues for the
reasons

stated

by

the

district
3

court.

Awe

v.

Miller,

No.

Appeal: 14-6444

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/04/2014

7:13-cv-00143-JLK-RSB

(W.D.

Pg: 4 of 4

Va.

Mar.

11,

2014).

Finally,

although Awe seeks review of the district court’s orders denying
his motions for counsel, we conclude Awe has forfeited appellate
review

of

district

these

court’s

orders

by

rulings.

failing

to

See

Cir.

4th

assert
R.

error

34(b)

in

the

(limiting

appellate review to issues raised in informal brief).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We deny Awe’s motions for assignment of counsel.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4