Williams v. Mackling, No. 07-7143 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7143 JOHN RUFFIN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JERRY L. MACKLING; STEVEN BAILY, Police Officer; L. MARSHALL, Sergeant, Police Officer; S. J. THOMPSON, Sergeant, Police Officer; SERGEANT DEPOY, Corrections Officer; LIEUTENANT WYNKOOP, Corrections Officer; COLONEL LAND, Corrections Officer Supervisor also known as Major Land; GLENN HILL, Sheriff, Corrections Officer Superintendent also known as Colonel Hill; NURSE JOSH, Corrections Facility Nurse on Duty; CARAL PRICE; SELWYN ADAMS, Dr., M.D., Corrections Facility Physician; K. HAMLIN, Corrections Facility Unit S-1 Nurse Supervisor; S. TAPPS, Corrections Facility Unit S-1 Grievance Coordinator; R. WOODSON, Corrections Facility Unit S-1 Grievance Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00147-RBS) Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Ruffin Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: John Ruffin Williams appeals the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000) for failure to state a claim. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We have Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, Williams v. Mackling, No. 2:07-cv-147 (E.D. Va. Jul 2, 2007), and deny Williams motion for judgment, in which he reargues the merits of his claims. 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 - 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.