Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

William A. Reddick v. Dr. Daryl Opicka, M.D., 88-1273 (1988)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 88-1273 Visitors: 24
Filed: Sep. 21, 1988
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 859 F.2d 153 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. William A. REDDICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Daryl OPICKA, M.D., Defendant-Appellee. No. 88-1273. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Sept. 21, 1988. Before WELLFORD and BOGGS, Circuit Judges and
More

859 F.2d 153

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
William A. REDDICK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Dr. Daryl OPICKA, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-1273.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Sept. 21, 1988.

Before WELLFORD and BOGGS, Circuit Judges and BAILEY BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

1

Plaintiff Reddick moves for counsel on appeal from the district court's judgment dismissing this prisoner's civil rights case. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon consideration, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

2

Reddick is a prisoner at the Riverside Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan. The defendant is a doctor at the prison. Reddick alleges that the doctor failed to allow Reddick to continue the course of nasal surgery which a doctor outside the hospital had prescribed. The district court held that Reddick did not state an eighth amendment claim because he had not shown deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.

3

We agree with the conclusions of the district court for the reasons stated in its opinion. Accordingly, the motion for counsel is denied, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed under Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, because the issues are not substantial and do not require oral argument.

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