Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Corey v. Reich, 04-6492 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6492 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6492 TIMOTHY COREY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUSAN REICH, Financial Accountant, HQ; DEAN DAY, Mail Man, Kirkland Correctional Institution; EILEEN WYLER, Nurse Practitioner, Kirkland Correctional Institution; WILLIAM LATRELL, Registered Nurse, Kirkland Correctional Institution; LAURIE F. BESSINGER, Warden, Kirkland Correctional Institution; MARCIA R. FULLER, RD HQ; JOHN A. DAVIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6492 TIMOTHY COREY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUSAN REICH, Financial Accountant, HQ; DEAN DAY, Mail Man, Kirkland Correctional Institution; EILEEN WYLER, Nurse Practitioner, Kirkland Correctional Institution; WILLIAM LATRELL, Registered Nurse, Kirkland Correctional Institution; LAURIE F. BESSINGER, Warden, Kirkland Correctional Institution; MARCIA R. FULLER, RD HQ; JOHN A. DAVIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-2801) Submitted: July 16, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Corey, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Timothy Corey appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a constitutional violation. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Corey v. Reich, No. CA-02-2801 (D.S.C. Mar. 9, 2004). 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