Filed: Mar. 18, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1106 ROBERT HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, Dept-A1; RONALD S. POLOTSKY; LORIEN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-3596-AMD) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 18, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1106 ROBERT HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, Dept-A1; RONALD S. POLOTSKY; LORIEN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-3596-AMD) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 18, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1106 ROBERT HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, Dept-A1; RONALD S. POLOTSKY; LORIEN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-3596-AMD) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 18, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Hayes 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 Hayes v. Health & Mental Hygiene, No. CA-03-3596-AMD (D. Md. Jan. 5, 2004). 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 -
