Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Clarence Roulhac Jr.'s Section 1983 lawsuit alleging poor conditions at Powhatan Correctional Center. While Roulhac raised many claims on appeal, the only claims properly before the courts were his Eighth Amendment challenges to food and water quality at PCC. The appellate court found no error in the district court's dismissal of Roulhac's food quality claim and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Roulhac's request for appointed counsel. The appellate court affirmed the district court's rulings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    26 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Clarence Roulhac Jr.'s Section 1983 lawsuit alleging poor conditions at Powhatan Correctional Center. While Roulhac raised many claims on appeal, the only claims properly before the courts were his Eighth Amendment challenges to food and water quality at PCC. The appellate court found no error in the district court's dismissal of Roulhac's food quality claim and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Roulhac's request for appointed counsel. The appellate court affirmed the district court's rulings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-05-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7815

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Clarence Roulhac Jr.'s Section 1983 lawsuit alleging poor conditions at Powhatan Correctional Center. While Roulhac raised many claims on appeal, the only claims properly before the courts were his Eighth Amendment challenges to food and water quality at PCC. The appellate court found no error in the district court's dismissal of Roulhac's food quality claim and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Roulhac's request for appointed counsel. The appellate court affirmed the district court's rulings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    26 views3 pages

    Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Clarence Roulhac Jr.'s Section 1983 lawsuit alleging poor conditions at Powhatan Correctional Center. While Roulhac raised many claims on appeal, the only claims properly before the courts were his Eighth Amendment challenges to food and water quality at PCC. The appellate court found no error in the district court's dismissal of Roulhac's food quality claim and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Roulhac's request for appointed counsel. The appellate court affirmed the district court's rulings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    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.,

    Virginia

    inmate,

    appeals

    the

    district courts order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2012)


    action for failure to state a claim.

    While Roulhacs 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 PCCs


    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

    Roulhacs

    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).


    2

    Additionally,

    we

    find

    no

    abuse

    of

    discretion

    in

    the

    courts

    Roulhacs motions for appointment of counsel.

    denial

    of

    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 courts judgment.
    dispense

    with

    contentions

    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like