Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. B. Janek, No. 13-6756 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6756 CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR., Plaintiff Appellant, v. B. S. JANEK, DMD, Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center, Defendant Appellee, and PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; LINDA RAY, Ms., Head Nurse, Powhatan Correctional Center; L. KUMP, Ms., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; A. TONEY, Mr., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; FRED SCHILLINGS, Dr., Health Service Director, VDOC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00408-HEH) Submitted: September 17, 2013 Decided: October 2, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Roulhac, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Clarence Roulhac, Jr., appeals the district court s order denying his post-judgment Motion to Remove his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action to District of Virginia. reversible error. a different division of the Eastern We have reviewed the record and find no Even assuming, without deciding, that the district court misconstrued Roulhac s motion as seeking relief under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, his motion provided no valid basis for transfer of his action to a different court, for recusal of the district court judge, or for relief from the underlying judgment. * Nor does Roulhac s informal brief provide any valid grounds to question our prior opinion affirming the district court s judgment. Janek, 518 F. App x 160 (4th Cir. 2013) See Roulhac v. (No. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. 12-7908). 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 * Although we do not rely specifically on the reasons identified by the district court, we may affirm a judgment for any reason appearing on the record. Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). 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.