Joseph Hatcher v. William York, No. 22-6997 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6997 JOSEPH HATCHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM YORK, M.D., Defendant - Appellee, and HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department Corrections, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00047-CMH-IDD) Submitted: April 25, 2023 Decided: April 27, 2023 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Hatcher, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Salvatore Cottone, BYRNE CANAAN LAW, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Hatcher appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Dr. William York in Hatcher’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to Hatcher’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and the magistrate judge’s order denying Hatcher’s motion to appoint counsel. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hatcher’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s summary judgment disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). With respect to the magistrate judge’s denial of Hatcher’s motion to appoint counsel, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Hatcher v. Clarke, No. 1:22-cv-00047-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2022; July 28, 2022). 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.