Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Coleman v. Furman, 08-7594 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-7594 Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 24, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7594 ANTHONY COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. FURMAN, MD, Physician; NURSE CUSHION BERRY, Lt. Nurse; NURSE GAINS; MS. ROBINSON, Captain Medical Division; MR. VENABLE, Major, Head of Kitchen Employee; MR. THOMPKIN, Lt. Employee; SARGEANT HALL, (Mr.) Sgt. Employee; MR. SAGE, Deputy Employee; MR. HARRIS, Deputy Employee; MR. DAVIS, Deputy Employee; MR. PARHAM, Deputy Employee; JOHN DOE, Dentist Employee, Defendants - App
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7594 ANTHONY COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. FURMAN, MD, Physician; NURSE CUSHION BERRY, Lt. Nurse; NURSE GAINS; MS. ROBINSON, Captain Medical Division; MR. VENABLE, Major, Head of Kitchen Employee; MR. THOMPKIN, Lt. Employee; SARGEANT HALL, (Mr.) Sgt. Employee; MR. SAGE, Deputy Employee; MR. HARRIS, Deputy Employee; MR. DAVIS, Deputy Employee; MR. PARHAM, Deputy Employee; JOHN DOE, Dentist Employee, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00607-GBL-TCB) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Coleman v. Furman, No. 1:08-cv-00607-GBL-TCB (E.D. Va. filed July 20, 2008 & entered July 21, 2008). We also deny Coleman’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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 in the decisional process. DISMISSED 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