Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Walter Simmons v. Hugh Chatham Hospital, 13-7750 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-7750 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jan. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7750 WALTER COLUMBUS SIMMONS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HUGH CHATHAM HOSPITAL; FORSYTH HOSPITAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00677-WO-JLW) Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7750


WALTER COLUMBUS SIMMONS,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

HUGH CHATHAM HOSPITAL; FORSYTH HOSPITAL,

                Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.   William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00677-WO-JLW)


Submitted:   January 21, 2014              Decided: January 24, 2014


Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Walter Columbus Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Walter Columbus Simmons appeals the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b) (2012).     We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error.    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.    Simmons v. Hugh Chatham Hosp., No. 1:13-

cv-00677-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C. Oct. 22, 2013).   We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this 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