Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McCoy v. Bruder, 00-7460 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7460 Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7460 FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM BRUDER, Lieutenant; DAVID C. DOZIER, O.I.C., CO II; UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, Individual and Official Capacity; THOMAS MCPHERSON, Nurse; CHARLES HAMPSEY; GARY SMITH, Lieutentant (RCI); DORINE WHITE (MHC); COR- RECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimo
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7460 FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM BRUDER, Lieutenant; DAVID C. DOZIER, O.I.C., CO II; UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, Individual and Official Capacity; THOMAS MCPHERSON, Nurse; CHARLES HAMPSEY; GARY SMITH, Lieutentant (RCI); DORINE WHITE (MHC); COR- RECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-99- 3026-L) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Gloria Wilson Shelton, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, John Augustine Bourgeois, KRAMON & GRAHAM, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., a Maryland inmate, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McCoy v. Bruder, No. CA-99-3026-L (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2000). We deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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