Clayton Vines v. Dr. Inder Jeet Singh Gujral


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00516-AWA-RJK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000127883]. Mailed to: Christina Marie Dwyer; Clayton Vines. [17-6349]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6349 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/31/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6349 CLAYTON VINES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. INDER JEET SINGH GUJRAL, Prison Physician, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00516-AWA-RJK) Submitted: July 27, 2017 Decided: July 31, 2017 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clayton Vines, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Marie Dwyer, Ramon Rodriguez, III, RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6349 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/31/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Clayton Vines appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. * Vines v. Gujral, No. 2:15-cv-00516-AWA-RJK (E.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2017). 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 * To the extent that Vines seeks to raise new claims on appeal, he fails to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances warrant consideration of those claims. See Pornomo v. United States, 814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016) (“Absent exceptional circumstances we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” (ellipsis omitted)). 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?