Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

94-7318 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-7318 Visitors: 145
Filed: Feb. 21, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 50 F.3d 5 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. David CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan JUSTICE, Nurse at Wateree River Correctional Institution; Nancy Wells, Nurse at Wateree River Correctional Institution; Martha Almond, Nurse at Wateree River Correctional Institution; Nurs
More

50 F.3d 5

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
David CHAPMAN, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Susan JUSTICE, Nurse at Wateree River Correctional
Institution; Nancy Wells, Nurse at Wateree River
Correctional Institution; Martha Almond, Nurse at Wateree
River Correctional Institution; Nurse Mcgill; G. W.
Thorpe, Nurse at Wateree River Correctional Institution,
Defendants--Appellees.

No. 94-7318.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 19, 1995.
Decided: Feb. 21, 1995.

David Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON, SIMS, MORRISON & SOJOURNER, P.A., Columbia, SC, for Appellees.

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Chapman v. Justice, No. CA 93-1452 (D.S.C. Sept. 23, 1994). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

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