Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Turner v. Hudson, 98-6575 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6575 Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 26, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6575 EDWIN CECIL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF HUDSON; LIEUTENANT BROOKS; DOCTOR BERDEEN; ROBERT FRONK, Medic; DELIAH BROWLEY, Medic, Defendants - Appellees, and MAYOR BOWERS; GEORGE M. MCMILLAN; ONZLEE WARE, Esquire; CONRAD DAUM, Dr., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-94-285-R) Submitted: October 8, 1
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6575 EDWIN CECIL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF HUDSON; LIEUTENANT BROOKS; DOCTOR BERDEEN; ROBERT FRONK, Medic; DELIAH BROWLEY, Medic, Defendants - Appellees, and MAYOR BOWERS; GEORGE M. MCMILLAN; ONZLEE WARE, Esquire; CONRAD DAUM, Dr., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-94-285-R) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin Cecil Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, Kevin Scott Blair, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, Roanoke, Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 granting Appel- lees’ motion for summary judgment, thereby denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and denying relief on his state law claims of medical malpractice and negligence. 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 and deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel and motion for sanctions. Turner v. Hudson, No. CA-94-285-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 20, 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
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