Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Winestock v. McCagh, 04-6809 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6809 Visitors: 20
Filed: Oct. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6809 PAUL WINESTOCK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEAN MCCAGH, Doctor; ROBERTS, Doctor; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-2599-1-WMN) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6809 PAUL WINESTOCK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEAN MCCAGH, Doctor; ROBERTS, Doctor; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-2599-1-WMN) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Winestock, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Frederick William Goundry, III, VARNER & GOUNDRY, Frederick, Maryland; Matthew Wayne Mellady, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Annapolis Junction, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Paul Winestock, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Winestock v. McCagh, No. CA-03-2599-1-WMN (D. Md. Apr. 20, 2004). Winestock’s motion to allow an attachment to his informal brief is denied. 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