Paul Thompson, Jr. v. Harold Clarke, No. 17-6504 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6504 PAUL CLEVELAND THOMPSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, VDOC; DAVID B. EVERETT, Regional Operations Chief, VDOC Eastern Region; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; THE GEO GROUP, INCORPORATED, Contractor with VDOC to operate and manage LVCC employees and staff to provide medical care to plaintiff; E. WRIGHT, Warden at LVCC; SHAW, Assistant Warden at LVCC (female); SHAW, Assistant Warden at LVCC (male); FANT, Unit Manager of Building #50 and the Therapeutic Community Program of Addictions Treatment; DAVIS, Unit Manager for Building #70; GRAVES, Unit Manager of Segregation; BOONE, Supervisor of Segregation; GOODE, Health Services Administrator of the LVCC Medical Department; KELLY, Law Library at LVCC; NURSE LUCY, Nurse; UNKNOWN MEDICAL STAFF TO BE NAMED LATER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:14-cv-00086-RBS-DEM) Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 27, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Cleveland Thompson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Leigh Berdichevsky, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Paul Cleveland Thompson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thompson v. Clarke, No. 2:14-cv-00086-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 9, 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.
