Bedell v. VT. D.O.C.

Fourth Circuit

Bedell v. VT. D.O.C.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 11, 2004

Docket03-7682

StatusUnpublished

This text of Bedell v. VT. D.O.C. (Bedell v. VT. D.O.C.) 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

Bedell v. VT. D.O.C., (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7682

CLINTON R. BEDELL, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VT. D.O.C.; JOHN GORCZYK; J. LABRIOLA; DR. CURRY-EL, Psychologist; DR. GENERAL; DR. FIELDING; B. BLAKELY; E. WILLIAMS; F. ROACH; C. MITCHELL; C. DAVIS; M. MILLARD; M. BOONE; K. DAVIS,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

RON ANGELONE, F.T.C.A. Official Capacity; INTERSTATE COMPACT CONTRACT; GREENSVILLE; VA. D.O.C.; K. CLARK; TERRY MOSHER, (VtDoc); SHAUNA LEWIS; DR. LEWIS; R. SPENCE; G. GARRAGHTY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-01-780-2)

Submitted: December 19, 2003 Decided: February 11, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clinton R. Bedell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Philip Carlton Hollowell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; John David McChesney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Michael Eugene Ornoff, ORNOFF & ARNOLD, P.C., Virginia Beach, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Clinton R. Bedell, Jr., appeals the district court’s

judgment dismissing his complaint against various defendants,

including prison authorities in Virginia and Vermont. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and orders

disposing of Bedell’s claims and find no error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bedell v.

Vermont Dep’t of Corr., No. CA-01-780-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 2003).

We deny Bedell’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief and

we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

- 3 -

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