UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7815
CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director VDOC; LINDA SHIELDS, F.S. Dir.
VDOC; CARL MARROW, Reg. F.S. Dir. VDOC; JEFFREY DILLMAN,
Warden Powhatan Corr. Ctr.; L. HUNT, Food Service Director,
P.C.C.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00049-HEH)
Submitted: April 28, 2015 Decided: May 1, 2015
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence Roulhac, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clarence Roulhac, Jr., a Virginia inmate, appeals the
district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
action for failure to state a claim. While Roulhac’s informal
appellate brief raises myriad challenges to the conditions of
his confinement, we conclude only his Eighth Amendment claims
related to the quality of the food and water served at Powhatan
Correctional Center (“PCC”) were fairly presented in the
complaint and thus properly raised in the district court. See
Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharm., Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 630-31 (4th
Cir. 2008) (finding no abuse of discretion in “declining to
grant a motion [to amend] that was never properly made”); see
also In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285-86 (4th Cir. 2014)
(recognizing court will not consider issues raised for first
time on appeal absent exceptional circumstances). Additionally,
Roulhac has forfeited appellate review of his challenge to PCC’s
water quality by failing to address this issue in his informal
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to
issues raised in informal brief).
As for the dismissal of Roulhac’s claim related to the
quality of the food served at PCC, we have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. We affirm as to this issue for
the reasons stated by the district court. Roulhac v. Clarke,
No. 3:13-cv-00049-HEH (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, 2014). Additionally,
2
we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of
Roulhac’s motions for appointment of counsel. See Miller v.
Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (standard of review);
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (addressing
circumstances requiring appointment of counsel in civil cases),
abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490
U.S. 296 (1989).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
3