Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07520/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07520-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosetta Bowles
Appellee
James Hingeley

William Kavanah

Kumer
Appellee
Denise Y. Lunford

Medical Director
Appellee
Ronnie A. Noel
Appellant
Paytel Phone System

Virginia Office of Protection and Advocacy

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7520

RONNIE A. NOEL,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL KUMER; ROSETTA BOWLES; MEDICAL DIRECTOR,

 Defendants – Appellees,

and

PAYTEL PHONE SYSTEM; DENISE Y. LUNFORD, Commonwealth 

Attorney; WILLIAM KAVANAH, Arresting Officer; JAMES 

HINGELEY, Supervisor, Albemarle Public Defender's Office; 

VOPA, VIRGINIA OFFICE OF PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief

District Judge. (7:14-cv-00200-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: February 24, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 14-7520 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Ronnie A. Noel, Appellant Pro Se. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY 

LAW FIRM, PC, Dillwyn, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7520 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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, granting 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-GEC-RSB (W.D. 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

Appeal: 14-7520 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3