Case Name: Romaine FRANCIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.T. WOODY, Sheriff, in his capacity as Sheriff for the City of Richmond; Sheriffs Department for the City of Richmond; Anderson, Medical Worker; Robertson, Captain of the City of Richmond Sheriffs Department, Defendants-Appellees, and Stanley Nelson Furman, Doctor, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-18
Citations: 450 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 11-6959
Parties: Romaine FRANCIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. C.T. WOODY, Sheriff, in his capacity as Sheriff for the City of Richmond; Sheriffs Department for the City of Richmond; Anderson, Medical Worker; Robertson, Captain of the City of Richmond Sheriffs Department, Defendants—Appellees, and Stanley Nelson Furman, Doctor, Defendant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 450
Pages: 303–303

Head Matter:
Romaine FRANCIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. C.T. WOODY, Sheriff, in his capacity as Sheriff for the City of Richmond; Sheriffs Department for the City of Richmond; Anderson, Medical Worker; Robertson, Captain of the City of Richmond Sheriffs Department, Defendants—Appellees, and Stanley Nelson Furman, Doctor, Defendant.
No. 11-6959.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 13, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 18, 2011.
Romaine Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Dybing, William Daniel Prince, Thompson MeMullan, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Romaine Francis appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment for the Appellees on his various 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Francis v. Woody, No. 3:09-cv-00235-REP, 2011 WL 2693206 (ED.Va. July 11, 2011). 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.