Wilbert Gilchrist v. Dr. Lard
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00630-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Wilbert Gilchrist. [17-6585]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Defendant – Appellee,
UNKNOWN; WENDALL PIXLEY, Warden, sued individually and in official
capacity; INDER JEET SINGH GUJRAL, Dr., sued individually and in official
capacity; JOHN DOE 1; J. EDWARDS, Nurse, sued individually and in official
capacity; MAYHUE, Ms., sued individually and in official capacity; JANE DOE 1;
TRACIE POARCH, Food Manager, sued individually and in official capacity;
NATARCHA GREGG, Ms., sued individually and in official capacity; JEFFERY
B. KISER, Warden; ROY CLARY, Assistant Warden; R. KELLY, Major; B.
KELLY, Sgt.; JOHN SYKES, Unit Manager; Y. TAYLOR, IPM; BRIAN
MITCHELL, Lt.; C. ARMES, Lt.; M. OLSIN, Food Director; DR. EDSON,
Physician; E. WHITED, RNCB Medical; DR. ARMETTE, DOC Chief Physician;
C. ST. JEAN, Nurse, sued individually and in official capacity; JOHN DOE 2,
Dental Assistance, sued individually and in official capacity,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:14-cv-00630-RCY)
Submitted: July 27, 2017
Decided: August 1, 2017
Pg: 2 of 3
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wilbert Gilchrist, Appellant Pro Se.
Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN CLAYTOR
CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
Wilbert Gilchrist appeals the magistrate judge’s * order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) action against Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge.
See Gilchrist v. Lard, No. 3:14-cv-00630-RCY (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 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.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.
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?