Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Taylor v. Medford, 03-7603 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7603 Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 10, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7603 FREDDIE D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUE MEDFORD, R. N. Nursing Supervisor II at Marion Correctional Institution; KEITH OSTEEN, Assistant Superintendent for Programs at Marion Correctional Institute; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Medical Utilization Review Board; NURSE GODFREY, Assistant Nurse at Marion Correctional Institution; DELRA RODATZ, Nurse, L.P.N.; DOCTOR JAGUST, Defendants - Appellees.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7603 FREDDIE D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUE MEDFORD, R. N. Nursing Supervisor II at Marion Correctional Institution; KEITH OSTEEN, Assistant Superintendent for Programs at Marion Correctional Institute; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Medical Utilization Review Board; NURSE GODFREY, Assistant Nurse at Marion Correctional Institution; DELRA RODATZ, Nurse, L.P.N.; DOCTOR JAGUST, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-202-1-02-MU) Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: March 10, 2004 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freddie D. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Freddie D. Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Taylor v. Medford, No. CA-03-202-1-02-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2003). 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