Hope v. State of Virginia
Hope v. State of Virginia
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6300
MAYFIELD BEAURAGUARD HOPE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEVESTER THOMPSON, Doctor; BRENDA ARCHER, Registered Nurse, Individually and in their official capacities, Defendants - Appellees, and STATE OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF COR- RECTIONS; RICHARD A. YOUNG, Regional Adminis- trator; RUFUS FLEMING, Warden, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-80)
Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mayfield Beauraguard Hope, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony John Trenga, Thomas Charles Junker, Bijan Gilanshah, HAZEL & THOMAS, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia; Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Mayfield Beauraguard Hope filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988), claiming that he received inadequate medical care.
The magistrate judge conducted a bench trial and granted judgment in Appellees' favor for the reasons stated from the bench. Hope appeals from the magistrate judge's order.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's statements from the bench. The magistrate judge properly found that Hope failed to show that Appellees acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hope v. Virginia, No. CA-95-80 (E.D. Va. Feb. 7, 1996). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* This case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising jurisdiction upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.