Filed: Aug. 12, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6559 GUY LANCASTER RICHMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED; LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-2338-WMN) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6559 GUY LANCASTER RICHMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED; LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-2338-WMN) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6559
GUY LANCASTER RICHMOND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED; LLOYD L.
WATERS, Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-95-2338-WMN)
Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Guy Lancaster Richmond, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.
Attorney General, Wendy A. Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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. Richmond v. Prison Health Services, No. CA-95-2338-WMN (D.
Md. Mar. 28, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2