UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6756
CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
B. S. JANEK, DMD, Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; LINDA RAY, Ms., Head Nurse,
Powhatan Correctional Center; L. KUMP, Ms., Doctor,
Powhatan Correctional Center; A. TONEY, Mr., Doctor,
Powhatan Correctional Center; FRED SCHILLINGS, Dr., Health
Service Director, VDOC,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00408-HEH)
Submitted: September 17, 2013 Decided: October 2, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence Roulhac, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Martin
Muldowney, RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Clarence Roulhac, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order denying his post-judgment “Motion to Remove” his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006) action to a different division of the Eastern
District of Virginia. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Even assuming, without deciding, that the
district court misconstrued Roulhac’s motion as seeking relief
under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, his
motion provided no valid basis for transfer of his action to a
different court, for recusal of the district court judge, or for
relief from the underlying judgment. * Nor does Roulhac’s
informal brief provide any valid grounds to question our prior
opinion affirming the district court’s judgment. See Roulhac v.
Janek, 518 F. App’x 160 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 12-7908).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
*
Although we do not rely specifically on the reasons
identified by the district court, “we may affirm a judgment for
any reason appearing on the record.” Republican Party of
N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992).
3