Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Richmond v. Prison Health Svc, 96-6559 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6559 Visitors: 64
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6559 GUY LANCASTER RICHMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED;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
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                             UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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