Clayton Vines v. Dr. Inder Jeet Singh Gujral

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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