Bernard Richardson v. Dulanes, No. 16-6906 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6906 BERNARD RAY RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOCTOR DULANES; N. STANFORD, Head Nurse W.R.S.P.; LESLIE J. FLEMING, Warden W.R.S.P.; B. R. RAVIZEE, Grievance Coordinator W.R.S.P.; R. H. BIVENS, Grievance Coordinator Western Regional Administrator Office; C. L. PARR, Grievance Coordinator Western Regional Administrator Office; NURSE BLEDSOE, W.R.S.P.; H. C. RAY, Virginia Department of Corrections Director of Health Services; NAME UNKNOWN, Va D.O.C. Director of Health Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00356-JCC-TCB) Submitted: May 18, 2017 Decided: June 1, 2017 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Ray Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bernard Ray Richardson appeals from the district court’s orders denying his request to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district court found that Richardson did not make a sufficient showing that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury and dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012). We have reviewed the record, including the dismissal orders identified as qualifying strikes pursuant to § 1915(g), and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Dulanes, No. 1:16-cv-00356-JCC-TCB (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2016 & June 1, 2016). 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.