Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cole v. Richland Memorial, 00-1798 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1798 Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 19, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1798 FRANCINE COLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; MICHAEL D. WADE, Individually; PAT WELLS, Individually; K. OUIDETTE GASQUE-CARTER, Individually; ELAINE ROBB, R.N., Individually; A. S. DUNBAR, Individually, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-412-1-17BC) Submi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1798 FRANCINE COLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; MICHAEL D. WADE, Individually; PAT WELLS, Individually; K. OUIDETTE GASQUE-CARTER, Individually; ELAINE ROBB, R.N., Individually; A. S. DUNBAR, Individually, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-412-1-17BC) Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francine Cole, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Elford Carpenter, Jr., Georgia Anna Mitchell, S. Elizabeth Brosnan, William Curry McDow, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN, CARPENTER & ROBINSON, Columbia, South Caro- lina; James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, South Carolina; Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Francine Cole appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cole v. Richland Mem’l Hosp., No. CA-99-412-1-17BC (D.S.C. March 23 & May 4 & 22, 2000). In light of this disposi- tion, we deny Cole’s motion to ensure corrected record on appeal and/or supplement the district court’s transcript. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately 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