Court Opinion

ID: 9892801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 21:00:53.944442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:46:28.829059
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7411      Doc: 16         Filed: 10/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7411

        EUPHRATES BEAN,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

              v.

        DR. MELVIN JOHNSON, Doctor; WAYNE HANDLEY, Director/Inmate Health
        Services; HEATHER RICHARDSON, Captain/Officer in Charge, Jail Operations;
        T. OSTULANO, Detective, #22183NPD,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:21-cv-01013-MSN-IDD)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 23, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Euphrates Bean, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Boice Axselle, WIMBISH GENTILE
        MCCRAY & ROEBER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7411     Doc: 16         Filed: 10/23/2023   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Euphrates Bean appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to

        Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to Bean’s

        serious medical needs.   We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Bean v. Johnson, No. 1:21-cv-01013-

        MSN-IDD (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2022). 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