Simpson v. Johnson ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7905
JOHN DAVID SIMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections; JOHN JABE, Deputy Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections; WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Regional Director,
Virginia Department of Corrections; ALTON BASKERVILLE,
Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; E. R. BASKERVILLE,
Assistant Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; FRED
SCHILLING, Virginia Department of Corrections, Health
Services Director; GEORGE SMITH, Chief Dentist, Virginia
Department of Corrections; DOCTOR HARLAND, Chief Dentist,
Virginia Department of Corrections; BRUCE L. JANEK, Dentist,
Powhatan Correctional Center; STEPHEN B. KOPELOVE, Chief
Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center; BRUCE HUZEK, Dentist,
Powhatan Correctional Center; NURSE PAYNE, Dental Hygiene
Nurse, Powhatan Correctional Center; OTHERS UNKNOWN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cv-00876-REP)
Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: June 29, 2010
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John David Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; John
David McChesney, Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, RAWLS & MCNELIS,
PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
John David Simpson appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and
denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Simpson v. Johnson, No. 3:05-cv-
00876-REP (E.D. Va. Mar. 28, 2008; Aug. 6, 2009; Sept. 3, 2009).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3