Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Williams v. Prime Care Medical, 00-6210 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6210 Visitors: 93
Filed: May 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6210 NEIL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRIME CARE MEDICAL; BEVERLY BILICH, L.P.N.; JODI CUNNINGHAM, Counselor; PAM FULTON, R.N.; JAMES D. SPENCER, Administrator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-147) Submitted: May 10, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000 Before WIDENER and WI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6210 NEIL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRIME CARE MEDICAL; BEVERLY BILICH, L.P.N.; JODI CUNNINGHAM, Counselor; PAM FULTON, R.N.; JAMES D. SPENCER, Administrator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-147) Submitted: May 10, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Neil Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michele Grinberg, FLAHERTY, SEN- SABAUGH & BONASSO, Charleston, West Virginia; Chad Marlo Cardinal, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Ap- pellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Neil Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Prime Care Medical, No. CA-99-147 (N.D.W. Va., Jan. 25, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer