Filed: Mar. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7657 JOSEPH J. RITCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGIA PERDUE, R.N.; RAZAAK ENIOLA, Dr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00- 880-MJG) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph J. Ritch, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7657 JOSEPH J. RITCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGIA PERDUE, R.N.; RAZAAK ENIOLA, Dr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00- 880-MJG) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph J. Ritch, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7657 JOSEPH J. RITCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGIA PERDUE, R.N.; RAZAAK ENIOLA, Dr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00- 880-MJG) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph J. Ritch, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews, Michael Joseph Lentz, KRAMON & GRAHAM, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph J. Ritch appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ritch v. Perdue, No. CA-00-880-MJG (D. Md. Oct. 31, 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
