Antwoine Jones v. Happy Smith
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.
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Antwoine Jones v. Happy Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antwoine-jones-v-happy-smith-ca4-2019.