Wyatt v. Mahon

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 8, 2008
Docket07-7524
StatusUnpublished

This text of Wyatt v. Mahon (Wyatt v. Mahon) 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
Wyatt v. Mahon, (4th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7524

KEITH E. WYATT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DANIEL T. MAHON, Warden, HCC; FRED SCHILLING, Director of Health Services; DR. ROGER M. PHILLIPS, M.D., Prison Doctor, HRRJ; DR. JOHN KING, M.D., Prison Doctor, HCC; DOCTOR K. W. JARRETT, M.D., Prison Doctor, HCC; DOCTOR W. D. HENCEROTH, M.D., Prison Doctor, PCC; DOCTOR BENJAMIN ULEP, M.D., Prison Doctor, Sussex II State Prison,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00348-JBF)

Submitted: June 17, 2008 Decided: July 8, 2008

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith E. Wyatt, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Bland Curwood, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Lisa Ehrich, Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Edward Joseph McNelis, III, Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Keith E. Wyatt appeals the district court’s order

granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing

claims against Defendant King for failure to state a claim pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. Wyatt v. Mahon, No. 2:06-cv-00348-JBF (E.D.

Va. Sept. 21, 2007). 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

- 3 -

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

Related

§ 1915A
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wyatt v. Mahon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wyatt-v-mahon-ca4-2008.