Thomas Littek v. Harold Clarke


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:16-cv-00072-JLK-PMS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999945471]. Mailed to: Thomas Littek. [16-6703]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6703 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/12/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6703 THOMAS ANTHONY LITTEK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VDOC; FREDERICK SCHILLING, VDOC’s Medical Director; STANLEY YOUNG, Warden at PSCC; ADAM K. WYATT, Defendants – Appellees, and ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Corporation contracted to provide medical and dental services to VDOC, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:16-cv-00072-JLK-PMS) Submitted: September 20, 2016 Decided: October 12, 2016 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Anthony Littek, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richard Carson Appeal: 16-6703 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/12/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-6703 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/12/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Thomas Anthony Littek appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Littek v. Clarke, No. 7:16-cv-00072-JLK-PMS (W.D. Va. May 9, 2016). 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

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?