Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Charles Patterson, Jr. v. Con Med, 16-6663 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-6663 Visitors: 15
Filed: Oct. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6663 CHARLES DANTE PATTERSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CON MED; WARDEN OF BALTIMORE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-03303-JFM) Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-6663


CHARLES DANTE PATTERSON, JR.,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

CON   MED;   WARDEN   OF   BALTIMORE     COUNTY   DEPARTMENT   OF
CORRECTIONS,

                Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:15-cv-03303-JFM)


Submitted:   September 29, 2016            Decided:   October 4, 2016


Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charles Dante Patterson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.     Eric Matthew
Rigatuso, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland; Jordan Vernon
Watts, Jr., BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson, Maryland,
for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Charles Dante Patterson, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.

We   have   reviewed   the    record    and   find   no     reversible    error.

Accordingly, we deny Patterson’s motion to appoint counsel and

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.                 Patterson

v. Con Med, No. 1:15-cv-03303-JFM (D. Md. Apr. 28, 2016).                     We

dispense    with    oral     argument   because      the    facts   and    legal

contentions   are   adequately     presented    in    the    materials    before

this 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