Jovon Davis v. Keeling, No. 17-7009 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7009 JOVON DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KEELING, Warden; DR. JAMES BROCKINGTON; SYED RAZA, Dr., I.C.C.C. Tel-med Mitt Clinic; JAMES “KEELING,” Warden; PAMELA WOODS, Unit Manager; G. A. HADEN, Defendants - Appellees, and VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD CLARK, Virginia D.O.C. Director; LT. TAYLOR; OFFICER POWERS, Correctional Officer, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00327-CMH-TCB) Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 28, 2017 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jovon Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Maughan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Jovon Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Davis’ informal brief does not sufficiently challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, Davis has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. * 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 * We have considered and reject Davis’ contention that the district court abused its discretion in denying the appointment of counsel. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (stating standard of review). 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.