Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Fields v. Rubenstein, 04-7140 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7140 Visitors: 36
Filed: Nov. 29, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7140 STEWART L. FIELDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner; WILLIAM S. HANIES, Warden; BILL ESLIE, Associate Warden of Operations; BOBBY HAMRICK, Medical Administrator; CLIFFTON HYRE, M.D., O.D.; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees, and WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF RISKS AND INSURANCES MANAGEMENT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7140 STEWART L. FIELDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner; WILLIAM S. HANIES, Warden; BILL ESLIE, Associate Warden of Operations; BOBBY HAMRICK, Medical Administrator; CLIFFTON HYRE, M.D., O.D.; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees, and WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF RISKS AND INSURANCES MANAGEMENT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-2) Submitted: November 18, 2003 Decided: November 29, 2004 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steward L. Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Stewart L. Fields appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action and denying several motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Fields v. Rubenstein, No. CA-04-2 (N.D.W. Va. May 28, & June 15, 2004). We grant Fields’ motion to dismiss John and Jane Doe as parties to the appeal. We deny Fields’ motions for appointment of counsel, injunctive relief and damages, and service of three Appellees. 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 - 3 -
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