Filed: Oct. 21, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6738 MARK DEWAYNE PRICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, MT. OLIVE CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00259) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 21, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6738 MARK DEWAYNE PRICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, MT. OLIVE CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00259) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 21, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6738
MARK DEWAYNE PRICE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, MT. OLIVE CORRECTIONAL
COMPLEX,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber,
Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00259)
Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 21, 2010
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Dewayne Price, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph M. Farrell, Jr.,
FARRELL, FARRELL & FARRELL, PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Dewayne Price appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Price v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. 2:08-cv-00259 (S.D.W.
Va. May 10, 2010). 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