Calvin Perry v. Harold Clarke

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 3, 2023
Docket23-6175
StatusUnpublished

This text of Calvin Perry v. Harold Clarke (Calvin Perry v. Harold Clarke) 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
Calvin Perry v. Harold Clarke, (4th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6175 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6175

CALVIN PERRY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE; WARDEN TIKKI HICKS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00447-JAG-MRC)

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Perry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6175 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Perry appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to

Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to Perry’s

serious medical need, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court denied

relief on Perry’s claims for damages and injunctive relief. Because Perry no longer resides

in the correctional facility that formed the basis of his claim for injunctive relief, we dismiss

the appeal with respect to that claim as moot. See Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182,

186-87 (4th Cir. 2009). With respect to Perry’s claim for damages, we have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the remainder of the district

court’s order. 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

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

Related

Rendelman v. Rouse
569 F.3d 182 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Calvin Perry v. Harold Clarke, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calvin-perry-v-harold-clarke-ca4-2023.