Marcus Thomas v. L. Ro

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999714497-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00989-TSE-MSN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999738488]. Mailed to: Thomas. [15-7622]

Appeal: 15-7622

Doc: 17

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7622

MARCUS D. THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
L. ROSS, RN; E. JOHNSON, RN; D. SPIERS, DON,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00989-TSE-MSN)

Submitted:

January 14, 2016

Decided:

January 20, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus D. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Martin Muldowney,
RAWLS,
MCNELIS
&
MITCHELL,
PC,
Richmond,
Virginia,
for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7622

Doc: 17

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Marcus D. Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying
relief

on

his

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2012)

complaint.

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
we

conclude

Defendants

that

Thomas

fabricated

the

has

presented

documents

no

submitted

We

have

Specifically,
evidence
in

that

support

of

their motion for summary judgment and that the district court
did

not

err

in

denying

Thomas’

counsel and to subpoena witnesses.

motions

for

appointment

of

Accordingly, we deny Thomas’

motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court.

Thomas v. Ross, No. 1:13-cv-

00989-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2015).

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

2