Pilkenton v. Smith

Fourth Circuit

Pilkenton v. Smith

74 F.3d 1233, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39047, 1996 WL 15423

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 17, 1996

Docket95-7366

StatusPublished

This text of 74 F.3d 1233 (Pilkenton v. Smith) 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

Pilkenton v. Smith, 74 F.3d 1233, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39047, 1996 WL 15423 (4th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

74 F.3d 1233
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Roy David PILKENTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David K. SMITH, Warden; Doctor Rostrafenski, Psychologist;
Louise Dixon, Medical Department Supervisor;
Elizabeth Wagner, LPN; Amy Wooten, LPN,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7366.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided Jan. 17, 1996.

Roy David Pilkenton, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Leigh Thompson Hanes, Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting judgment as a matter of law for the Defendants after a bench trial on Appellant's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) claim that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Pilkenton v. Smith, No. CA-94-116-R (W.D.Va. Aug. 22, 1995). 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

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

74 F.3d 1233
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Roy David PILKENTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David K. SMITH, Warden; Doctor Rostrafenski, Psychologist;
Louise Dixon, Medical Department Supervisor;
Elizabeth Wagner, LPN; Amy Wooten, LPN,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7366.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided Jan. 17, 1996.

Roy David Pilkenton, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Leigh Thompson Hanes, Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting judgment as a matter of law for the Defendants after a bench trial on Appellant's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) claim that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Pilkenton v. Smith, No. CA-94-116-R (W.D.Va. Aug. 22, 1995). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 F.3d 1233, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39047, 1996 WL 15423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pilkenton-v-smith-ca4-1996.