Wilbert Gilchrist v. Dr. Lard, No. 17-6585 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6585 WILBERT GILCHRIST, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. DR. LARD, Defendant – Appellee, and UNKNOWN; WENDALL PIXLEY, Warden, sued individually and in official capacity; INDER JEET SINGH GUJRAL, Dr., sued individually and in official capacity; JOHN DOE 1; J. EDWARDS, Nurse, sued individually and in official capacity; MAYHUE, Ms., sued individually and in official capacity; JANE DOE 1; TRACIE POARCH, Food Manager, sued individually and in official capacity; NATARCHA GREGG, Ms., sued individually and in official capacity; JEFFERY B. KISER, Warden; ROY CLARY, Assistant Warden; R. KELLY, Major; B. KELLY, Sgt.; JOHN SYKES, Unit Manager; Y. TAYLOR, IPM; BRIAN MITCHELL, Lt.; C. ARMES, Lt.; M. OLSIN, Food Director; DR. EDSON, Physician; E. WHITED, RNCB Medical; DR. ARMETTE, DOC Chief Physician; C. ST. JEAN, Nurse, sued individually and in official capacity; JOHN DOE 2, Dental Assistance, sued individually and in official capacity, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:14-cv-00630-RCY) Submitted: July 27, 2017 Decided: August 1, 2017 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilbert Gilchrist, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Wilbert Gilchrist appeals the magistrate judge’s * order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action against Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Gilchrist v. Lard, No. 3:14-cv-00630-RCY (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2017). 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 * The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. 3

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.