Court Opinion

ID: 9391002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 21:01:31.139507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.058994
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6997      Doc: 18        Filed: 04/27/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6997

        JOSEPH HATCHER,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        WILLIAM YORK, M.D.,

                            Defendant - Appellee,

                     and

        HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department Corrections,

                            Defendant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00047-CMH-IDD)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                     Decided: April 27, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6997      Doc: 18         Filed: 04/27/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Joseph Hatcher, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Salvatore Cottone, BYRNE CANAAN LAW,
        Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6997      Doc: 18          Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Joseph Hatcher appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Dr.

        William York in Hatcher’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to

        Hatcher’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and the magistrate

        judge’s order denying Hatcher’s motion to appoint counsel. On appeal, we confine our

        review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hatcher’s

        informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s summary judgment

        disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey,

        775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under

        Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). With respect

        to the magistrate judge’s denial of Hatcher’s motion to appoint counsel, we have reviewed

        the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Hatcher v. Clarke, No.

        1:22-cv-00047-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2022; July 28, 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

                                                      3