Noel v. Kumer

Fourth Circuit

Noel v. Kumer

594 F. App'x 187

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 2015

DocketNo. 14-7520

StatusPublished

This text of 594 F. App'x 187 (Noel v. Kumer) 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

Noel v. Kumer, 594 F. App'x 187 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie A. Noel appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction, denying as moot his motion for appointment of specialists, [188]*188granting the motion to dismiss claims against Lt. Col. Kumer and Rosetta Bowles, and dismissing without prejudice claims against the Medical Director of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Noel v. Lt. Col. Kumer, No. 7:14-cv-00200-GE C-RSB (WD.Va. Oct. 6, 2014). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie A. Noel appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction, denying as moot his motion for appointment of specialists, [188]*188granting the motion to dismiss claims against Lt. Col. Kumer and Rosetta Bowles, and dismissing without prejudice claims against the Medical Director of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Noel v. Lt. Col. Kumer, No. 7:14-cv-00200-GE C-RSB (WD.Va. Oct. 6, 2014). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

594 F. App'x 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noel-v-kumer-ca4-2015.