Case ID: f-appx_385/html/0349-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John David SIMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; John Jabe, Deputy Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; William P. Rogers, Regional Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Alton Baskerville, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; E.R. Baskerville, Assistant Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; Fred Schilling, Virginia Department of Corrections, Health Services Director; George Smith, Chief Dentist, Virginia Department of Corrections; Doctor Harland, Chief Dentist, Virginia Department of Corrections; Bruce L. Janek, Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center; Stephen B. Kopelove, Chief Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center; Bruce Huzek, Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center; Nurse Payne, Dental Hygiene Nurse, Powhatan Correctional Center; Others Unknown, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-7905.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 24, 2010.
    Decided: June 29, 2010.
    John David Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; John David McChesney, Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Rawls & McNelis, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John David Simpson appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Simpson v. Johnson, No. 3:05-cv-00876-REP (E.D. Va. Mar. 28, 2008; Aug. 6, 2009; Sept. 3, 2009). 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.