Ronnie Whitener v. John Patterson

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6049 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6049 RONNIE DALE WHITENER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN PATTERSON, RCDC Sergeant, in his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 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6049 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6049 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Ronnie Dale Whitener appeals the district court’s orders denying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