Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Nichols v. Beshears, 95-7486 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7486 Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7486 ANDREW NICHOLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED; DOCTOR CALDERON; JOSEPH GRIFFIN, M.D.; KEVIN JOHNSON; DAVID BLOOM, Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-374-WMN) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7486 ANDREW NICHOLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED; DOCTOR CALDERON; JOSEPH GRIFFIN, M.D.; KEVIN JOHNSON; DAVID BLOOM, Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-374-WMN) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Nichols, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Kushner Kline, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, BILLINGSLEY, SHIPLEY, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, Riverdale, Maryland; Daniel Karp, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). 2 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. Nichols v. Beshears, No. CA-95-374-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 1, 1995). 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 3
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