Case Name: Ronald L. COSNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. DODT, Nurse Practitioner at Powhatan Medical Unit; Ronald Toney, Doctor and Medical Director in the P.M.U., Defendants-Appellees, and Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., Corp. under contract with V.D.O.C. to provide health services, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-15
Citations: 638 F. App'x 242
Docket Number: No. 15-6962
Parties: Ronald L. COSNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. DODT, Nurse Practitioner at Powhatan Medical Unit; Ronald Toney, Doctor and Medical Director in the P.M.U., Defendants-Appellees, and Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., Corp. under contract with V.D.O.C. to provide health services, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 638
Pages: 242–242

Head Matter:
Ronald L. COSNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. DODT, Nurse Practitioner at Powhatan Medical Unit; Ronald Toney, Doctor and Medical Director in the P.M.U., Defendants-Appellees, and Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., Corp. under contract with V.D.O.C. to provide health services, Defendant.
No. 15-6962.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 10, 2016.
Decided: March 15, 2016.
Ronald L. Cosner, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Abraham McBeth, Edward J. McNelis, III, Rachel Lynne Procopio, Rawls, McNelis & Mitchell, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald L. Cosner appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cosner v. Dodt, No. 1:12-cv-01366-LMB-TRJ, 2014 WL 3810245 (E.D.Va. Mar. 14 & Aug. 1, 2014; June 17, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presénted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.