Tamar Devell Harvey v. FREDERICK RUSSELL, Asst. Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6077
TAMAR DEVELL HARVEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FREDERICK RUSSELL, Asst. Warden
Defendant - Appellee
and
D. LANDAUER, N.P.; DR. ARAKAKY; DAVID A. RYLAK, MD of Augusta Health
Center; MICHAEL R. PLAUTZ, MD Augusta Otolaryngology Assoc.; STEPHEN PARK,
MD of the University of Virginia Health System, Otolaryngology; DR. DANIEL PETERS,
of the University of Virginia Health System, Otolaryngology; C. D. WHITLOCK,
Lieutenant; MCDANIEL, Correctional Officer; PEALE, Correctional Officer; E. SHIPP,
RN, Director of Nursing; T. HAMILTON, RN; JOHN A. WOODSON, “ACC” Warden;
DR. S. HERRICK, Director of Health Services; THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; AUGUSTA HEALTH CENTER; UVA NEUROSURGERY;
LACOUR, Laundry Manager; THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, exclusively;
FRIDLEY, Sgt.; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections; S. CONNER, “ACC” Grievance Coordinator; LEWIS, Augusta Correctional
Center Officer; TAMMY COYNER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00097-EKD-JCH)
Submitted: July 29, 2022 Decided: September 22, 2022

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tamar Devell Harvey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Tamar Devell Harvey appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment
to David A. Rylak and D. Landauer, and granting S. Conner’s motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim, and judgment entered in favor of Frederick Russell after a jury trial.* We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Harvey v.
Russell, No. 7:18-cv-00097-EKD-JCH (W.D. Va. Jan. 14, 2022). We deny Harvey’s
motion and supplemental motion for transcripts. 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 presented in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b);
Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).

-- 3 of 3 --