Daniel Phoenix v. Stacey Kincaid, No. 22-6438 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6438 DANIEL W. PHOENIX, a/k/a Daniel W. Jamison, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STACEY A. KINCAID, Sheriff; MARK W. SITES, Chief Deputy of Operations; LISHAN KASSA, MD; JONITA CONNER, MD; JANET WURIE, NP, Fairfax County Adult Detention Center; 1ST LT. AUGHAVEN, Grievance Coordinator; 2ND LT. MESIER, #252; LT. REJEILI; DEPUTY ABEL, #054; DEPUTY JONES; DEPUTY PLAZICK, Defendants - Appellees, and XIN WANG, NP, Fairfax County Adult Detention Center; DEPUTY PJ THOMPSON, #789; SGT. PUTMAN, #860; S. RAY, DDS; ERICHA RAUF, Director of Nursing; DEPUTY STRAUSER; S. CARLISLE, DDS; LT. PERKINS; LT. PARSONS, #382; LT. EVENS; ARAMARK, Director of Food Services at the Fairfax County ADC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cv-01062-RDA-IDD) Submitted: August 7, 2023 Amended: September 6, 2023 Decided: September 6, 2023 Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel W. Jamison, Appellant Pro Se. Rosalie Fessier, Brittany Elizabeth Shipley, TIMBERLAKE SMITH, Staunton, Virginia; Debra Schneider Stafford, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, PC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Daniel W. Jamison appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the defendants on Jamison’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Jamison v. Kincaid, No. 1:21-cv-01062-RDA-IDD (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2022). 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 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.