Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Allen v. Correctional Medical, 97-7683 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7683 Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 04, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7683 PETER LENOX ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS; MICHAEL MURRAY; DOCTOR ROSAREIO; DOCTOR BRAVES; PHILLIP ADJEI, Doctor; DOCTOR GETACHEW; JOHN DOE, Doctor; DOCTOR ALLEN; PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT MYLES; PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT BENNETT; RICHARD LANHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7683 PETER LENOX ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS; MICHAEL MURRAY; DOCTOR ROSAREIO; DOCTOR BRAVES; PHILLIP ADJEI, Doctor; DOCTOR GETACHEW; JOHN DOE, Doctor; DOCTOR ALLEN; PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT MYLES; PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT BENNETT; RICHARD LANHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 97-1652-S) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Lenox Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews, Karl Joseph Nelson, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Gloria Selena Wilson-Shelton, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Allen v. Correctional Med. Sys., No. CA-97-1652-S (D. Md. Oct. 16, 1997). 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 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