UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6793
ROY HUNT, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SANDHIR, M.D., Powhatan Correctional Center; THOMPSON, M.D.,
Wallens Ridge State Prison; LUCY DOSSETT, M.D.,
International Radiology Group, LLC; STANFORD, Registered
Nurse, Wallens Ridge State Prison; COLLINS, Registered
Nurse, Wallens Ridge State Prison; CLARK, Registered Nurse,
Wallens Ridge State Prison; BROWN, Correctional Officer
Sergeant, Wallens Ridge State Prison; DAVID ROBINSON,
Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison; FRED SCHILLING, Health
Service Director; KING, M.D.; A. WARREN,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JOHN DOE, on 2/23/06, M.D., Powhatan Correctional Center;
A.J. UNKNOWN, on 2/2/06, M.D., Powhatan Correctional Center,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cv-00539-RLW)
Submitted: October 28, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Roy Hunt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY
LAW FIRM, PC, Dillwyn, Virginia; Rodney Seth Dillman, HANCOCK,
DANIEL, JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Susan
Bland Curwood, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Roy Hunt, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have already
decided Hunt’s appeal from the underlying order, in which the
district court dismissed Hunt’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) suit.
In that case, we affirmed the district court’s order as to all
Defendants except Dr. Thompson. As to Thompson, we vacated the
district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings.
See Hunt v. Sandhir, No. 08-6457 (4th Cir. Sept. 29, 2008)
(unpublished). Hunt’s Rule 59(e) motion reargued the claims
raised below and made in his first appeal. Thus, for the same
reasons outlined in our prior opinion, we affirm the district
court’s order as to all defendants except Dr. Thompson. With
regard to the claim against Thompson, because the cause of
action has already been remanded for further consideration, the
portion of the appeal contesting the district court’s treatment
of this claim is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss this part of the
appeal. 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3