Antwoine Jones v. Happy Smith, No. 19-6384 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6384 ANTWOINE MCKINLEY JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. HAPPY SMITH, M.D.; VIKKI PHIPPS, Medical Administrator, Defendants - Appellees, and RED ONION STATE PRISON, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (7:17-cv-00244-PMS) Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antwoine McKinley Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Susan A. Waddell, GUYNN WADDELL CARROLL & LOCKABY, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antwoine McKinley Jones appeals the judgment in favor of Appellees after a bench trial before the magistrate judge * on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint that alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. “Following a bench trial, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” Wards Corner Beauty Acad. v. Nat’l Accrediting Comm’n of Career Arts & Scis., 922 F.3d 568, 573 (4th Cir. 2019). We have reviewed the magistrate judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Jones v. Smith, No. 7:17-cv00244-PMS (W.D. Va. Feb. 20, 2019, Mar. 18, 2019). Because Jones fails to show the existence of a substantial question for appeal, we deny his motion for transcripts at Government expense. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012). 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 * The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). 2

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.