Ronnie Dale Whitener v. JOHN PATTERSON, RCDC Sergeant, in his individual

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6049
RONNIE DALE WHITENER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN PATTERSON, RCDC Sergeant, in his individual and official capacity; JOHN
COOLEY, RCDC Officer, in his individual and official capacity; JOSHUA
GOODWIN, RCDC Officer, in his individual and official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
THE RUTHERFORD COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, RCDC; CHRIS
FRANCIS, Rutherford County Sheriff, in his individual and official capacity; JOHN
DOE, RCDC Administrator, in his individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE 2,
RCDC Captain, in his individual and official capacity; RCDC’S HEALTHCARE
PROVIDER, Name unknown, HCP; JANE DOE 1, RCD’s HCP’s Medical
Administrator, in her individual and official capacity; JANE DOE 2, RCDC’s HCP’s
Medical Director, in her individual and official capacity; JANE DOE 3, RCDC’s
HCP’s Medical Physician, in her individual and official capacity; JANE DOE 4,
RCDC’s HCP’s Nurse Practitioner, in her individual and official capacity,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00048-MR)
Submitted: April 24, 2025 Decided: June 17, 2025

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Dale Whitener, Appellant Pro Se. Christian Ferlan, HALL BOOTH SMITH, PC,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Sean Francis Perrin, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US)
LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Dale Whitener appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. See Whitener
v. Patterson, No. 1:21-cv-00048-MR (W.D.N.C. Dec. 6, 2023; Sept. 1, 2023). 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
* We limit our review to issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b);
Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).

-- 3 of 3 --