Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kinder v. Potts, 96-6177 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6177 Visitors: 31
Filed: Jul. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6177 DAVID A. KINDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES POTTS, Dr.; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED; JEAN SNYDER; RONALD G. NELSON; SHARON ALDEN; REBECCA EICHELBERGER, R.N.; P. A. KAUSHNER; RICHARD A. LANHAM, Commissioner; RONALD MOATS, Warden; ARNOLD TICHNELL, Lieu- tenant, CO IV; MARVIN CARBAUGH, Sergeant, CO III, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, a
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6177 DAVID A. KINDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES POTTS, Dr.; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED; JEAN SNYDER; RONALD G. NELSON; SHARON ALDEN; REBECCA EICHELBERGER, R.N.; P. A. KAUSHNER; RICHARD A. LANHAM, Commissioner; RONALD MOATS, Warden; ARNOLD TICHNELL, Lieu- tenant, CO IV; MARVIN CARBAUGH, Sergeant, CO III, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 95-2364-PJM) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David A. Kinder, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Maude Peyton, MASON, KETTERMAN & MORGAN, Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph Barry Chazen, MEYERS, BILLINGSLEY, SHIPLEY, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, Riverdale, Mary- land; Richard M. Kastendieck, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kinder v. Potts, No. CA-95-2364-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 25, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions 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