Gregory Jones v. Jeffrey Rickman, No. 20-7504 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-7504 GREGORY HUDSON JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JEFFREY E. RICKMAN, Dentist at Alexander C.I., in his individual and official capacities; TIM F. TOWNSEND, Dentist at Mt. View C.I., in his individual and official capacities; DORA PLUMMER, Director of Health Services at D.P.S., in her individual and official capacities; BELINDA E. ABREU-PENA, Dentist at Alexander C.I., in her individual and official capacities; ERIC HOOKS, Secretary of the D.P.S., in his individual and official capacities; KENNETH LASSITER, Director of Adult Corrections Prisons Division, in his individual and official capacities; PAULA SMITH, Director of Health Care Services, in her individual and official capacities; JAMES CLARE, Dental Director, in his individual and official capacities; DONNA L. WOODRUFF, DDS, Assistant Dental Director, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees, and JAMES VAUGHN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:18-cv-00181-MR) Submitted: March 18, 2021 Decided: March 22, 2021 Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Hudson Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth L. Jones, CARRUTHERS & ROTH, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina; Stephen W. Coles, COLES LAW FIRM, Concord, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Hudson Jones appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants summary judgment in Jones’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Rickman, No. 5:18-cv-00181-MR (W.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 2020). 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.
