Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06627/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06627-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6627

RAYMOND A. FORD, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. JERRY A. MILES, DDS; DR. HAYES, Dentist; C. BAILEY, Health 

Services Administrator (“HSA”); R. TYLER, Licensed Practical 

Nurse (“LPN”); C. SMITH, LPN; V. M. WASHINGTON, Assistant 

Warden; G. L. HOLLOWAY, Assistant Warden; FRED SCHILLING, 

Health Services Director,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

MR. or MS. TURNER, LPN,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge. (2:11-cv-00636-RBS-LRL)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-6627 Doc: 21 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Raymond Alexander Ford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michelle Lyn 

Rowling Warden, Carlyle Randolph Wimbish, III, SANDS ANDERSON, PC, 

Richmond, Virginia; Rosalie Fessier, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & 

MOSES, PC, Staunton, Virginia; Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, RAWLS, 

MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6627 Doc: 21 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Raymond A. Ford, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ford v. 

Miles, No. 2:11-cv-00636-RBS-LRL (E.D. Va. Feb. 27, 2014; Feb. 13, 

2015; Mar. 24, 2015). 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

Appeal: 15-6627 Doc: 21 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3