Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mills v. MD Penitentiary Hosp, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    Albert Curtis Mills filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against dentists at a Maryland penitentiary hospital alleging inadequate dental care. The district court denied Mills relief and denied his motion for injunctive relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appellate court denied Mills' request for a transcript and ruled that oral argument was not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-07-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6343

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Albert Curtis Mills filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against dentists at a Maryland penitentiary hospital alleging inadequate dental care. The district court denied Mills relief and denied his motion for injunctive relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appellate court denied Mills' request for a transcript and ruled that oral argument was not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views3 pages

    Mills v. MD Penitentiary Hosp, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Albert Curtis Mills filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against dentists at a Maryland penitentiary hospital alleging inadequate dental care. The district court denied Mills relief and denied his motion for injunctive relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appellate court denied Mills' request for a transcript and ruled that oral argument was not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-6343

    ALBERT CURTIS MILLS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MARYLAND
    PENITENTIARY
    HOSPITAL
    DENTISTS;
    NATHAN FLETCHER, D.D.S., Maryland Penitentiary
    Dentist,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    No. 97-6781

    ALBERT CURTIS MILLS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MARYLAND
    PENITENTIARY
    HOSPITAL
    DENTISTS;
    NATHAN FLETCHER, D.D.S., Maryland Penitentiary
    Dentist,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA96-1277-DKC)

    Submitted:

    May 29, 1998

    Decided:

    July 16, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Albert Curtis Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Roy Leonard Mason, MASON,
    KETTERMAN & MORGAN, Baltimore, Maryland; Deborah Maude Peyton,
    MASON, KETTERMAN & MORGAN, Hunt Valley, Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district courts orders denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his
    motion for injunctive relief. We have reviewed the record and the
    district courts opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mills v.
    Maryland Penitentiary Hosp. Dentists, No. CA-96-1277-DKC (D. Md.
    Jan. 31 & May 8, 1997). We deny Appellants motion for a transcript. 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

    You might also like