Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Taylor v. Turpin, 03-6130 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6130 Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6130 CHRISTOPHER CORNELIUS TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES M. TURPIN, Dr., Physician at Marion Correctional Institution; EMIDIO J. FELICIONE, Doctor at Central Prison; ELLA MARKLAND, M.D., Doctor at Marion Correctional Institution; NURSE CONDREY, a Registered Nurse at Marion Correctional Institution; THE UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD, Board of Doctors at Central Prison (names unknown); JOHN MORGAN; P. A. CREENSHAW, P
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6130 CHRISTOPHER CORNELIUS TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES M. TURPIN, Dr., Physician at Marion Correctional Institution; EMIDIO J. FELICIONE, Doctor at Central Prison; ELLA MARKLAND, M.D., Doctor at Marion Correctional Institution; NURSE CONDREY, a Registered Nurse at Marion Correctional Institution; THE UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD, Board of Doctors at Central Prison (names unknown); JOHN MORGAN; P. A. CREENSHAW, Physician at Central Prison, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-283-MU-1) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 17, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Cornelius Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher Cornelius Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Taylor v. Turpin, No. CA-02-283-MU-1 (W.D.N.C. filed Dec. 30, 2002, entered Jan. 3, 2003). 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