Court Opinion

ID: 9882051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:01:10.226951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.861946
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6175      Doc: 12         Filed: 10/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6175

        CALVIN PERRY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD CLARKE; WARDEN TIKKI HICKS,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00447-JAG-MRC)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Calvin Perry, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6175         Doc: 12        Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Calvin Perry appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to

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

        serious medical need, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court denied

        relief on Perry’s claims for damages and injunctive relief. Because Perry no longer resides

        in the correctional facility that formed the basis of his claim for injunctive relief, we dismiss

        the appeal with respect to that claim as moot. See Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182,

        186-87 (4th Cir. 2009). With respect to Perry’s claim for damages, we have reviewed the

        record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the remainder of the district

        court’s order. 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 IN PART,
                                                                                 DISMISSED IN PART

                                                       2