William Chappell v. Dr. William Reese

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00113-LMB-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000044070]. Mailed to: William Chappell FCI ALLENWOOD-LOW FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1000 White Deer, PA 17887-0000. [16-7611]

Appeal: 16-7611

Doc: 15

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7611

WILLIAM CHAPPELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. WILLIAM REESE, Northern Neck Regional Jail's in-house
physician, sued individually in his official capacity; KEITH
JOHNSON, Mental Health Counselor at NNRJ, sued individually
in his official capacity; CAROLYN NEALE, RN was the Head
Nurse/Nursing Supervisor at NNRJ, sued individually in her
official capacity; JANE DOE, Daytime shift nurse at NNRJ, sued
individually in her official capacity,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
NORTHERN NECK REGIONAL JAIL,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:16-cv-00113-LMB-IDD)

Submitted:

March 14, 2017

Decided:

March 17, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-7611

Doc: 15

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

William Chappell, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, Philip
Corliss Krone, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-7611

Doc: 15

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William Chappell appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
the record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed

Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court.

Chappell v. Reese,

No. 1:16-cv-00113-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 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

3