John McPartlin v. Althea Roache-McDonald

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999650794-2]. Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00620-MSD-TEM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999722161]. Mailed to: John McPartlin. [15-6574]

Appeal: 15-6574

Doc: 34

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6574

JOHN JOSEPH MCPARTLIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALTHEA ROACHE-MCDONALD, DMD-CDO Petersburg Correctional
Complex;
PATRICIA
STANSBERRY,
Warden,
Petersburg
Correctional Complex; MS. LEVISTER (JANE DOE), Assistant
Warden, Petersburg Correctional Complex,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
ERNEST PONRAJ, DDS Petersburg Correctional Complex,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00620-MSD-TEM)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 21, 2015

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Joseph McPartlin, Appellant Pro Se.
Virginia Lynn Van
Valkenburg, Susan Lynn Watt, Assistant United States Attorneys,

Appeal: 15-6574

Doc: 34

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6574

Doc: 34

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John Joseph McPartlin appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971),

and

the

court’s

subsequent

order

denying

McPartlin’s

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment.
We

have

reviewed

the

Accordingly,

although

pauperis,

affirm

court.

we

record
we

for

and

grant
the

find
leave

reasons

no
to

reversible
proceed

stated

by

the

in

error.
forma

district

See McPartlin v. Roache-McDonald, No. 2:11-cv-00620-MSD-

TEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2015 & Apr. 22, 2015).

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3