Harvey v. Mahon

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 27, 2005
• Docket: 04-7466
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7466

MICHAEL RAY HARVEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DANIEL T. MAHON; DAVID A. SMITH, Assistant Warden, H.C.C.; J. REDD, Segregation Counselor, H.C.C.; C/O BUTLER, H.C.C.; KING, Medical Doctor, H.C.C.; V. EVANS, Segregation Unit, H.C.C.; WILLIAM RODGERS, Regional Administrator Central Region, VDOC; L. DOTSON, Warden, L.C.C.; DAVIS, C.C.A.; D. A. BRAXTON, ROSP; S. FLEENOR, Grievance Coordinator at ROSP, VDOC; JOHN DOE, I, Person named unknown at C.C.A., VDOC, employee at C.C.A.; JOHN DOE, II, Person named unknown at C.C.A., VDOC, employee of C.C.A.; JOHN DOE, III, Person named unknown at C.C.A., employee head of Medical Staff; JOHN DOE, IV, Person unknown at VDOC, Director of Medical Services, and Medical Policy of D.O.C.; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R. FLEMING, Major; J. K. VAUGHN; R. T. COKER; V. SMITH, Doctor; RUFUS FLEMING; PAUL WILLIAMS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-829-7-JLK)

Submitted: April 1, 2005 Decided: April 27, 2005

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Ray Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, Jim Harold Guynn, Jr., GUYNN, MEMMER & DILLON, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Michael Ray Harvey appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Harvey v.

Mahon, No. CA-02-829-7-JLK (filed Aug. 30, 2004; entered Aug. 31,

2004). We grant the motions to file an oversize brief and a

supplemental informal reply brief and 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. The motions for appointment of counsel, a

preliminary injunction, a temporary restraining order, and a

permanent injunction are denied.

AFFIRMED

- 3 -