Denis Rivera v. VDOC, No. 17-6293 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 24, 2017.

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6293 DENIS RIVERA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD CLARKE; DAVID ROBINSON; G. K. WASHINGTON; RANDALL MATHENA; GREGORY HOLLOWAY; SCOTT RICHESON; MALCOLM TAYLOR; KEITH DAWKINS; DR. BRANE; JIM PARKS; HENRY PONTON; EARL BARKSDALE; GEORGE HINKLE; ELIZABETH THORNTON; J. WALRATH; I. HAMILTON; T. PURYEAR; J. ARTRIP; A. GALLIHAR; G. BAKER; MICHAEL YOUNCE; WALTER SWINEY; TORI RAIFORD; DWAYNE TURNER; STACY DAY; CHRISTOPHER GILBERT; JOE FANNIN; TONY ADAMS; G. A. ADAMS; K. A. SYKES; R. KEGLEY; B. E. STALLARD; JACKSON; J. KING, former counselor at Red Onion State Prison; A. B. DUNCAN, Unit Manager, Defendants - Appellees, and EXTERNAL REVIEW TEAM; DUAL TREATMENT TEAM; UNIT MANAGER TEAM, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:15-cv-00156-JPJ-RSB) Submitted: January 31, 2018 Decided: March 1, 2018 Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Denis Rivera, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Denis Rivera appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Rivera’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rivera v. Va. Dep’t. of Corr., No. 7:15-cv-00156-JPJ-RSB (W.D. Va. Dec. 8, 2016 & Feb. 3, 2017). 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 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.