Filed: Jun. 01, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7826 ARTHUR CARL DOVE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus QUALITY DENTAL SERVICE; CYNTHIA IDZIK, Doctor, DDS; OSWALD WARNER, Doctor, DDS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-157-AW) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7826 ARTHUR CARL DOVE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus QUALITY DENTAL SERVICE; CYNTHIA IDZIK, Doctor, DDS; OSWALD WARNER, Doctor, DDS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-157-AW) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7826
ARTHUR CARL DOVE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
QUALITY DENTAL SERVICE; CYNTHIA IDZIK, Doctor,
DDS; OSWALD WARNER, Doctor, DDS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-98-157-AW)
Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999
Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Bernard Tetrault, PRISM, Chestertown, Maryland, for Appel-
lant. Kevin Bock Karpinski, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Carl Dove appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) 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. See Dove v. Quality Dental Serv., No. CA-98-
157-AW (D. Md. Nov. 23, 1998). 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.
AFFIRMED
2