Bernard Richardson v. Dulane


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999993292-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00356-JCC-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000092518]. Mailed to: B. Richardson. [16-6906]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6906 Doc: 19 Filed: 06/01/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6906 BERNARD RAY RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOCTOR DULANES; N. STANFORD, Head Nurse W.R.S.P.; LESLIE J. FLEMING, Warden W.R.S.P.; B. R. RAVIZEE, Grievance Coordinator W.R.S.P.; R. H. BIVENS, Grievance Coordinator Western Regional Administrator Office; C. L. PARR, Grievance Coordinator Western Regional Administrator Office; NURSE BLEDSOE, W.R.S.P.; H. C. RAY, Virginia Department of Corrections Director of Health Services; NAME UNKNOWN, Va D.O.C. Director of Health Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00356-JCC-TCB) Submitted: May 18, 2017 Decided: June 1, 2017 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Ray Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6906 Doc: 19 Filed: 06/01/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Bernard Ray Richardson appeals from the district court’s orders denying his request to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district court found that Richardson did not make a sufficient showing that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury and dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012). We have reviewed the record, including the dismissal orders identified as qualifying strikes pursuant to § 1915(g), and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Dulanes, No. 1:16-cv-00356-JCC-TCB (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2016 & June 1, 2016). 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

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?