Case Name: Ronnie Junior ELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor MARIETTA, Primary Physician of R.R.J.; Peter Ober, P/A of R.R.J.; Jane or John Doe, R.R.J. rep. or Employee Responsible for Major Medical Decisions of Treatment; Jane or John Doe, Unknown Employee or Rep(s) of R.R.J. Responsible for Interferring with Ellis' Access to Courts, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-21
Citations: 333 F. App'x 751
Docket Number: No. 09-6976
Parties: Ronnie Junior ELLIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Doctor MARIETTA, Primary Physician of R.R.J.; Peter Ober, P/A of R.R.J.; Jane or John Doe, R.R.J. rep. or Employee Responsible for Major Medical Decisions of Treatment; Jane or John Doe, Unknown Employee or Rep(s) of R.R.J. Responsible for Interferring with Ellis’ Access to Courts, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 751–752

Head Matter:
Ronnie Junior ELLIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Doctor MARIETTA, Primary Physician of R.R.J.; Peter Ober, P/A of R.R.J.; Jane or John Doe, R.R.J. rep. or Employee Responsible for Major Medical Decisions of Treatment; Jane or John Doe, Unknown Employee or Rep(s) of R.R.J. Responsible for Interferring with Ellis’ Access to Courts, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-6976.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 15, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2009.
Ronnie Junior Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, Cook, Kitts & Francuzenko, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Junior Ellis appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny his motion for discovery, deny his motion for a refund, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ellis v. Marietta, No. 2:07-cv-00867-MSD-JEB (E.D. Va. filed May 8, 2009; entered May 11, 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.