Filed: May 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6084 BRIAN OWEN HALL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; DOCTORS AND NURSES OF CMS; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Employed by Contractor Dr. Aldana; ROSE MARY ROBINSON; A. MCLOY, Nurse, LPN; PAMELA REEDHAM, Nurse, RN, Defendant – Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Dist
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6084 BRIAN OWEN HALL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; DOCTORS AND NURSES OF CMS; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Employed by Contractor Dr. Aldana; ROSE MARY ROBINSON; A. MCLOY, Nurse, LPN; PAMELA REEDHAM, Nurse, RN, Defendant – Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Distr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6084
BRIAN OWEN HALL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; DOCTORS AND NURSES OF CMS;
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Employed by Contractor Dr.
Aldana; ROSE MARY ROBINSON; A. MCLOY, Nurse, LPN; PAMELA
REEDHAM, Nurse, RN,
Defendant – Appellant,
v.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:10-
cv-00701-RWT)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Owen Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews, Ryan
Alexander Mitchell, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Brian Owen Hall 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 deny as moot Hall’s motion for abeyance and
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hall v.
Corr. Med. Servs., No. 8:10-cv-00701-RWT (D.S.C. filed Dec. 1,
2010, entered Dec. 2, 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
3