Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00049-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999575870]. Mailed to: Roulhac. [14-7815]

Appeal: 14-7815

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7815

CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director VDOC; LINDA SHIELDS, F.S. Dir.
VDOC; CARL MARROW, Reg. F.S. Dir. VDOC; JEFFREY DILLMAN,
Warden Powhatan Corr. Ctr.; L. HUNT, Food Service Director,
P.C.C.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00049-HEH)

Submitted:

April 28, 2015

Decided:

May 1, 2015

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Roulhac, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7815

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/01/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Clarence

Roulhac,

Jr.,

a

Virginia

inmate,

appeals

the

district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
action for failure to state a claim.

While Roulhac’s informal

appellate brief raises myriad challenges to the conditions of
his confinement, we conclude only his Eighth Amendment claims
related to the quality of the food and water served at Powhatan
Correctional

Center

(“PCC”)

were

fairly

presented

in

the

complaint and thus properly raised in the district court.

See

Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharm., Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 630-31 (4th
Cir.

2008)

(finding

no

abuse

of

discretion

in

“declining

to

grant a motion [to amend] that was never properly made”); see
also In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285-86 (4th Cir. 2014)
(recognizing court will not consider issues raised for first
time on appeal absent exceptional circumstances).

Additionally,

Roulhac has forfeited appellate review of his challenge to PCC’s
water quality by failing to address this issue in his informal
brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to

issues raised in informal brief).
As

for

the

dismissal

of

Roulhac’s

claim

related

to

the

quality of the food served at PCC, we have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error.

We affirm as to this issue for

the reasons stated by the district court.

Roulhac v. Clarke,

No. 3:13-cv-00049-HEH (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, 2014).
2

Additionally,

Appeal: 14-7815

we

Doc: 9

find

no

Filed: 05/01/2015

abuse

of

Pg: 3 of 3

discretion

in

the

court’s

Roulhac’s motions for appointment of counsel.

denial

of

See Miller v.

Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (standard of review);
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (addressing
circumstances requiring appointment of counsel in civil cases),
abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490
U.S. 296 (1989).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3