Newby v. Fasting

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 8, 2002
• Docket: 02-6676
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6676

FELIX A. NEWBY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

N. FASTING, sued in their individual capacities; E. ROUNTREE, sued in their individual capacities; JANE DOE, sued in their individual capacities; M. WICKIZER, sued in their individual capacities; CARLOS WILLIAMS, sued in their individual and official capacities; RAJIV NANAVATY, sued in their individual and official capacities; ALAN TOWNE, sued in their individual and official capacities; FRED LAINE, sued in their individual and official capacities; WILLIAM BROADDUS, sued in their individual and official capacities; A. SPEER; E. BOAKYE; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; JOHN DOE, sued in their individual capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-01-1432-1)

Submitted: September 23, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Felix A. Newby, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Felix A. Newby appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

(2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Even if Defendant Jane Doe’s

actions amounted to deliberate indifference, Newby has failed to

show that her actions resulted in an injury of sufficient

seriousness to warrant relief. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

834 (1994). Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning

of the district court. See Newby v. Fasting, No. CA-01-1432-1

(E.D. Va. filed Mar. 27, 2002; entered Mar. 28, 2002). 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