Thomas Hogge v. Harvard Stephen

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7340 THOMAS K. HOGGE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. HARVARD STEPHENS, Dr., Chief Physician, Office of Health Services, sued individually and in official capacity; MANICKAVASAGER, Dr., Institutional Physician, Deerfield Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity; ALVIN HARRIS, Dr., Chief Institutional Physician (Past), Deerfield Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity; LINDA ROBB, Phlebotomist (Lab Technician), Powhatan Medical Unit (Receiving), sued individually and in official capacity; FRED SCHILLINGS, Director of Prison Health Services, sued individually and in official capacity, Defendants – Appellees, and KEITH DAVIS, Warden, Deerfield Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity; BENITA BADGETTE, Healthcare Adm., Deerfield Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity; HOFFMAN, Dr., Institutional Physician, Deerfield Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity; AMONETTE, Dr., Chief Institutional Physician, Powhatan Receiving Unit, sued individually and in official capacity; MARY JOHNSON, Registered Nurse, Deerfield Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity; FRED SCHILLING, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:09-cv-00582-JRS) Submitted: February 29, 2012 Decided: March 13, 2012 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas K. Hogge, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Rosalie Fessier, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, PC, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Kevin Hogge appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. have reviewed the record and find no reversible We error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hogge v. Stephens, No. 3:09-cv-00582-JRS (E.D. Va. Sept. 24, 2010; June 1, Sept. 6 & 16, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3