Case Name: George Patton NELSON, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cheryl ROBINSON, Superintendent for the Medical Department of the Richmond City Jail. Sued individually and in her official capacity; Pruitt, Undersheriff, Richmond City Jail and Chaplain of the Richmond City Jail, sued individually and in official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-17
Citations: 454 F. App'x 174
Docket Number: No. 11-6785
Parties: George Patton NELSON, III, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Cheryl ROBINSON, Superintendent for the Medical Department of the Richmond City Jail. Sued individually and in her official capacity; Pruitt, Undersheriff, Richmond City Jail and Chaplain of the Richmond City Jail, sued individually and in official capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 454
Pages: 174–175

Head Matter:
George Patton NELSON, III, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Cheryl ROBINSON, Superintendent for the Medical Department of the Richmond City Jail. Sued individually and in her official capacity; Pruitt, Undersheriff, Richmond City Jail and Chaplain of the Richmond City Jail, sued individually and in official capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 11-6785.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2011.
Decided: Nov. 17, 2011.
George Patton Nelson, III, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Douglas Lane, Thompson McMullan PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
George Patton Nelson, III, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny as moot Nelson's motion for injunctive relief pending appeal, and we affirm the judgment below for the reasons stated by the district court. Nelson v. Robinson, No. 3:08-cv-00603-HEH, 2011 WL 2358542 (E.D. Va. June 9, 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.