Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • David Atkins v. Donald Farley, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting judgment on the pleadings for Defendant Schwartz, granting the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for Defendants Farley, Sears, Shank, and Shortell, and denying relief for plaintiff David Atkins in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, thus affirming the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-02-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7510

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting judgment on the pleadings for Defendant Schwartz, granting the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for Defendants Farley, Sears, Shank, and Shortell, and denying relief for plaintiff David Atkins in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, thus affirming the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    David Atkins v. Donald Farley, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting judgment on the pleadings for Defendant Schwartz, granting the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for Defendants Farley, Sears, Shank, and Shortell, and denying relief for plaintiff David Atkins in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, thus affirming the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7510

    DAVID ATKINS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DONALD
    F.
    FARLEY,
    Sheriff;
    K.
    SEARS,
    Classification
    Officer; SHANK, Classification Officer; STEVEN SHORTELL,
    LT.; KATHRYN SCHWARTZ, RN, Head Nurse,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Glen E. Conrad, Chief
    District Judge. (7:11-cv-00592-GEC-RSB)

    Submitted:

    January 15, 2013

    Decided:

    February 1, 2013

    Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Atkins, Appellant Pro Se.


    Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY
    LAW FIRM, PC, Dillwyn, Virginia; Wade Travis Anderson, Kevin
    Osborne Barnard, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia,
    for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    David
    granting

    the

    Atkins

    motion

    appeals

    for

    the

    judgment

    on

    district
    the

    courts

    pleadings

    order

    filed

    by

    Defendant Schwartz, granting the motion to dismiss for failure


    to state a claim filed by Defendants Farley, Sears, Shank, and
    Shortell,

    and

    denying

    civil rights action.


    reversible error.

    relief

    on

    his

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    (2006)

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in

    forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district
    court.

    Atkins v. Farley, No. 7:11-cv-00592-GEC-RSB (W.D. Va.

    Aug. 3, 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

    You might also like