Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. Kavanaugh, 03-7283 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7283 Visitors: 56
Filed: Dec. 04, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7283 CHARLES JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK KAVANAUGH; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; DOCTOR TESFAYE, Director; JOHN MOSS, Physician Assistant; OFFICER HILTON; EDWARD TAMES, Lieutenant; CHRISTOPHER OZOUKWU, Officer; THOMAS RESHKE, Nurse; PATRICE DEWITT, Pharmacy Nurse; OFFICER ROBINSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7283 CHARLES JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK KAVANAUGH; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; DOCTOR TESFAYE, Director; JOHN MOSS, Physician Assistant; OFFICER HILTON; EDWARD TAMES, Lieutenant; CHRISTOPHER OZOUKWU, Officer; THOMAS RESHKE, Nurse; PATRICE DEWITT, Pharmacy Nurse; OFFICER ROBINSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-3409-RDB) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Jones 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jones v. Kavanaugh, No. CA-02-3409-RDB (D. Md. filed July 22, 2003; entered July 23, 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