Court Opinion

ID: 9397908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 21:01:52.930585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.672301
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7103      Doc: 54         Filed: 05/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7103

        JAMES R. AURSBY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        KYLE THOMAS RICHARDSON; IRENE PAYNE HYRE; HIRAM
        MACPHERSON; STEVEN HERRICK; KYLE ALEXANDER SMITH;
        GREGORY BRIAN SAATHOFF; STEVE CLINK; DAVID SMITH; HAROLD W.
        CLARKE; CHEVROLET, INC.; DAMERON, R.N.; WOODSON, Warden; D.
        GREGORY, N.R.C.; P. WHITE, Warden,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:21-cv-00339-JPJ-PMS)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 25, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James R. Aursby, Appellant Pro Se. Taylor Denslow Brewer, MORAN, REEVES &
        CONN, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7103      Doc: 54         Filed: 05/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               James R. Aursby appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        amended complaint, in which he alleged claims of deliberate indifference, in violation of

        the Eighth Amendment, and state law claims. We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Aursby v. Richardson,

        No. 7:21-cv-00339-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va. Sept. 6, 2022). We deny Aursby’s motions to

        appoint counsel and for default judgment. 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

                                                    2