Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
5 opinions for “Ophelia De'Lonta v. Gene Johnson”
Ophelia De'Lonta v. Gene Johnsonpublic domain
Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge DIAZ wrote the opinion, in which Judge MOTZ and Judge KING joined. OPINION DIAZ, Circuit Judge: Virginia inmate Ophelia Azriel De’lonta (born Michael A. Stokes) filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that prison officials denied her adequate medical treat
De'Lonta v. Johnsonpublic domain
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ophelia Azriel De’Lonta appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her complaint alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (2006). We have reviewed the record a
De'Lonta v. Johnsonpublic domain
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ophelia Azriel De’Lonta seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying De’Lon-ta’s motion for appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 12
De'Lonta v. Johnsonpublic domain
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ophelia De’Lonta appeals the magistrate judge’s stipulation of dismissal order.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in her order denying De’Lon-
De'Lonta v. Johnsonpublic domain
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ophelia De’Lonta appeals the magistrate judge’s stipulation of dismissal order.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in her order denying De’Lon-