John Simpson v. Gene Johnson, No. 09-7905 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Certiorari dismissed, February 22, 2011 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7905 JOHN DAVID SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; JOHN JABE, Deputy Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Regional Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; E. R. BASKERVILLE, Assistant Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; FRED SCHILLING, Virginia Department of Corrections, Health Services Director; GEORGE SMITH, Chief Dentist, Virginia Department of Corrections; DOCTOR HARLAND, Chief Dentist, Virginia Department of Corrections; BRUCE L. JANEK, Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center; STEPHEN B. KOPELOVE, Chief Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center; BRUCE HUZEK, Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center; NURSE PAYNE, Dental Hygiene Nurse, Powhatan Correctional Center; OTHERS UNKNOWN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cv-00876-REP) Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. June 29, 2010 John David Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; John David McChesney, Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John David Simpson appeals the district court s orders denying relief on his 42 denying reconsideration. no reversible error. U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and We have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Simpson v. Johnson, No. 3:05-cv- 00876-REP (E.D. Va. Mar. 28, 2008; Aug. 6, 2009; Sept. 3, 2009). 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.