Roy David Pilkenton, Plaintiff-appellant, v. David K. Smith, Warden; Doctor Rostrafenski, Psychologist;louise Dixon, Medical Department Supervisor;elizabeth Wagner, Lpn; Amy Wooten, Lpn,defendants-appellees, 74 F.3d 1233 (4th Cir. 1996)
Annotate this CaseRoy David Pilkenton, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Leigh Thompson Hanes, Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting judgment as a matter of law for the Defendants after a bench trial on Appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) claim that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Pilkenton v. Smith, No. CA-94-116-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 22, 1995). 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
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.
