Antwoine Jones v. Happy Smith

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 25, 2019
Docket19-6384
StatusUnpublished

This text of Antwoine Jones v. Happy Smith (Antwoine Jones v. Happy Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Antwoine Jones v. Happy Smith, (4th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6384

ANTWOINE MCKINLEY JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. HAPPY SMITH, M.D.; VIKKI PHIPPS, Medical Administrator,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

RED ONION STATE PRISON,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (7:17-cv-00244-PMS)

Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antwoine McKinley Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Susan A. Waddell, GUYNN WADDELL CARROLL & LOCKABY, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Antwoine McKinley Jones appeals the judgment in favor of Appellees after a

bench trial before the magistrate judge * on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint that

alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. “Following a bench trial, we

review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de

novo.” Wards Corner Beauty Acad. v. Nat’l Accrediting Comm’n of Career Arts & Scis.,

922 F.3d 568, 573 (4th Cir. 2019). We have reviewed the magistrate judge’s findings of

fact and conclusions of law and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Jones v. Smith, No. 7:17-cv-

00244-PMS (W.D. Va. Feb. 20, 2019, Mar. 18, 2019). Because Jones fails to show the

existence of a substantial question for appeal, we deny his motion for transcripts at

Government expense. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012). 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

* The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Antwoine Jones v. Happy Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antwoine-jones-v-happy-smith-ca4-2019.