Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cooper v. Prison Health SVC, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    A group of inmates filed a Section 1983 claim against prison health services providers alleging inadequate medical treatment. The district court dismissed the claim. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error. The appellate court also declined to consider new claims raised for the first time on appeal. The court denied the inmates' motion for appointment of counsel and ruled that oral argument was not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-01-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6964

    Original Title

    Cooper v. Prison Health Svc, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    A group of inmates filed a Section 1983 claim against prison health services providers alleging inadequate medical treatment. The district court dismissed the claim. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error. The appellate court also declined to consider new claims raised for the first time on appeal. The court denied the inmates' motion for appointment of counsel and ruled that oral argument was not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views2 pages

    Cooper v. Prison Health SVC, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    A group of inmates filed a Section 1983 claim against prison health services providers alleging inadequate medical treatment. The district court dismissed the claim. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error. The appellate court also declined to consider new claims raised for the first time on appeal. The court denied the inmates' motion for appointment of counsel and ruled that oral argument was not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-6964

    RICHARD DAVID COOPER; GEORGE WILSON; JOHN


    TRIPPETT; JAMES BRITTON; KENNEY EDWARDS;
    WILLIAM YOUNG; HENRY DAVIS; GARY BRIGHT;
    GREGORY
    HAMILTON;
    CHARLES
    HILL;
    ANTHONY
    PRESSBERRY; BRIAN STOKELING; IRVIN BURNS, JR.;
    THOMAS MATTINGLY; VINCIN HARPSTER; HENRY
    HARRIS; JESSE COBBS; JONATHAN BORK; JOHN
    CARTER; CHARLES WRIGHT; WILLIAM BAKER-EL;
    LOWELL D. HOWELL; DONALD FITZGERALD
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    and
    EVERETTE PRATT,
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    PRISON HEALTH SERVICE, INCORPORATED; PHARMACY
    SERVICES, INCORPORATED; MARYLAND DIVISION OF
    CORRECTION,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-01-1428-S)

    Submitted:

    December 12, 2001

    Decided:

    January 11, 2002

    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Richard David Cooper, George Wilson, John Trippett, James Britton,


    Kenney Edwards, William Young, Henry Davis, Gary Bright, Gregory
    Hamilton, Charles Hill, Anthony Pressberry, Brian Stokeling, Irvin
    Burns, Jr., Thomas Mattingly, Vincin Harpster, Henry Harris, Jesse
    Cobbs, Jonathan Bork, John Carter, Charles Wright, William
    Baker-El, Lowell D. Howell, Donald Fitzgerald, Appellants Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants appeal the district courts order dismissing their
    42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2001) medical treatment claim.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    no reversible error.

    Further, we decline to review Appellants

    claims raised for the first time on appeal.


    States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
    the reasoning of the district court.

    See Muth v. United

    Accordingly, we affirm on

    See Cooper v. Prison Health

    Servs., No. CA-01-1428-S (D. Md. May 23, 2001).


    lants motion for appointment of counsel.

    We deny Appel-

    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

    You might also like