Donald Hinton v. Officer Anderson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00197-MFU-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999985556]. Mailed to: Donald Lee Hinton. [16-6934]

Appeal: 16-6934

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/13/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6934

DONALD LEE HINTON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
OFFICER ANDERSON; C/O MULLEN; SGT. PROFIT,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
NURSE O’CONNER; NURSE MALINGALIN; NURSE SHEYBANI; OFFICER
WAD; SGT. SIZEMORE; POCAHONTAS CORRECTIONAL CENTER; C/O
BUCKLES; NURSE HEADLY; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; OFFICER C.
ALFORD; C/O HASTING; SGT. CABWELL; C/O HOWARD; NURSE
LOCKHART;
SERGEANT
NEAL;
NURSE
STRAWBERRY;
SERGEANT
THORNTON; LIEUTENANT WATTS; PSYCHOLOGIST BLAND; HEARINGS
OFFICER J. BRANDY; NURSE BOOTH; HEAD NURSE SUE YATES,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:14-cv-00197-MFU-RSB)

Submitted:

November 14, 2016

Decided:

December 13, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-6934

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/13/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Donald Lee Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Hull Davidson, John
Michael
Parsons,
Assistant
Attorneys
General,
Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-6934

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/13/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Donald
denying

Lee

relief

Hinton
on

his

appeals
42

U.S.C.

the

district

§ 1983

(2012)

denying his motion for reconsideration.
record and find no reversible error.

court’s

orders

complaint

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

Hinton v. Anderson,

No. 7:14-cv-00197-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. May 27 & June 20, 2016).
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

and

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3