Filed: Oct. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6754 GUY LANCASTER RICHMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA- 96-808-WMN) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6754 GUY LANCASTER RICHMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA- 96-808-WMN) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6754
GUY LANCASTER RICHMOND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; PRISON
HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-
96-808-WMN)
Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Guy Lancaster Richmond, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Barry Chazen,
Mindy S. Kursban, MEYERS, BILLINGSLEY, SHIPLEY, RODBELL & ROSEN-
BAUM, Riverdale, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Rich-
mond v. Maryland Correctional Institution, No. CA-96-808-WMN (D.
Md. May 1, 1996). 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