Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Richmond v. Corr Inst Health, 00-6562 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6562 Visitors: 26
Filed: Aug. 30, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6562 GUY LANCASTER RICHMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION HEALTH DEPARTMENT, Maryland Correctional Institution, Western Correctional Institution, Roxbury Correctional Institution; THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-99-3222-WMN) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Dec
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6562 GUY LANCASTER RICHMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION HEALTH DEPARTMENT, Maryland Correctional Institution, Western Correctional Institution, Roxbury Correctional Institution; THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-99-3222-WMN) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 30, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Guy Lancaster Richmond, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN- ERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Guy Lancaster Richmond appeals the district court’s order de- nying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) 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 Richmond v. Correctional Institution Health Dep’t, No. CA-99-3222-WMN (D. Md. Apr. 13, 2000). We dis- pense 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