Roy Hunt, Jr. v. Sandhir, No. 08-6793 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6793 ROY HUNT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SANDHIR, M.D., Powhatan Correctional Center; THOMPSON, M.D., Wallens Ridge State Prison; LUCY DOSSETT, M.D., International Radiology Group, LLC; STANFORD, Registered Nurse, Wallens Ridge State Prison; COLLINS, Registered Nurse, Wallens Ridge State Prison; CLARK, Registered Nurse, Wallens Ridge State Prison; BROWN, Correctional Officer Sergeant, Wallens Ridge State Prison; DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison; FRED SCHILLING, Health Service Director; KING, M.D.; A. WARREN, Defendants Appellees, and JOHN DOE, on 2/23/06, M.D., Powhatan Correctional Center; A.J. UNKNOWN, on 2/2/06, M.D., Powhatan Correctional Center, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cv-00539-RLW) Submitted: October 28, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Hunt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY LAW FIRM, PC, Dillwyn, Virginia; Rodney Seth Dillman, HANCOCK, DANIEL, JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Susan Bland Curwood, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Roy Hunt, Jr., appeals from the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have already decided Hunt s appeal from the underlying order, in which the district court dismissed Hunt s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) suit. In that case, we affirmed the district court s order as to all Defendants except Dr. Thompson. district See court s Hunt v. order Sandhir, (unpublished). and No. As to Thompson, we vacated the remanded 08-6457 for (4th further Cir. proceedings. Sept. 29, 2008) Hunt s Rule 59(e) motion reargued the claims raised below and made in his first appeal. Thus, for the same reasons outlined in our prior opinion, we affirm the district court s order as to all defendants except Dr. Thompson. regard to the claim against Thompson, because the With cause of action has already been remanded for further consideration, the portion of the appeal contesting the district court s treatment of this claim is moot. appeal. legal before Accordingly, we dismiss this part of the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.