Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. B. Janek

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 9, 2013
Docket12-7908
StatusUnpublished

This text of Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. B. Janek (Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. B. Janek) 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
Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. B. Janek, (4th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7908

CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

B. S. JANEK, DMD, Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; LINDA RAY, Ms., Head Nurse, Powhatan Correctional Center; L. KUMP, Ms., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; A. TONEY, Mr., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; FRED SCHILLINGS, Dr., Health Service Director, VDOC,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00408-HEH)

Submitted: March 19, 2013 Decided: April 9, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Roulhac, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Clarence Roulhac, Jr., appeals the district court’s

judgment denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claims of

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district

court. Roulhac v. Janek, No. 3:10-cv-00408-HEH (E.D. Va.

Dec. 23, 2011 & Feb. 16, 2012 & Oct. 9, 2012). We deny

Roulhac’s motion to compel Defendants to provide dental care.

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

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. B. Janek, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarence-roulhac-jr-v-b-janek-ca4-2013.