Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Juggins v. Wurie, 08-6004 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-6004 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 01, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6004 MAURICE JUGGINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JANET WURIE, Nurse Practitioner; STAN BERRY, Sheriff; HARDY, Nurse; MALIK, Dr.; QUINTANA, Lt., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-01126-TSE-TCB) Submitted: April 14, 2008 Decided: May 1, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6004 MAURICE JUGGINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JANET WURIE, Nurse Practitioner; STAN BERRY, Sheriff; HARDY, Nurse; MALIK, Dr.; QUINTANA, Lt., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-01126-TSE-TCB) Submitted: April 14, 2008 Decided: May 1, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Juggins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maurice Juggins, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). In his informal appellate brief, Juggins failed to address the district court’s basis for dismissing his claims against Janet Wurie, Dr. Malik, and Nurse Hardy. Therefore, Juggins has waived appellate review of those claims. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”). We have reviewed the record as to Juggins’ claims against the remaining Defendants and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Juggins v. Wurie, No. 1:07-cv-01126- TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. Nov. 23, 2007). We also deny Juggins’ motions for appointment of counsel and dismissal of payments for filing fees. 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