Filed: Jan. 05, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7632 CHARLES A. DUNN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR TESSEMA; RAZAAK ENIOLA, Doctor; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:06-cv- 00573-RWT) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7632 CHARLES A. DUNN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR TESSEMA; RAZAAK ENIOLA, Doctor; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:06-cv- 00573-RWT) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7632 CHARLES A. DUNN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR TESSEMA; RAZAAK ENIOLA, Doctor; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:06-cv- 00573-RWT) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles A. Dunn, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Joseph Crawford, ALDELMAN, SHEFF & SMITH, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles A. Dunn, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Dunn’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dunn v. Tessema, No. 8:06- cv-00573-RWT (D. Md. filed Sept. 7, 2006; entered Sept. 8, 2006). 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 -
