Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • James Davis v. Corizon Medical Services, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. James Davis appealed a district court ruling denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Corizon Medical Services and other defendants. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's opinion. The appellate court also denied Davis' motion to appoint counsel and dispensed with oral arguments.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-03-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7526

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. James Davis appealed a district court ruling denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Corizon Medical Services and other defendants. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's opinion. The appellate court also denied Davis' motion to appoint counsel and dispensed with oral arguments.

    Copyright:

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

    James Davis v. Corizon Medical Services, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. James Davis appealed a district court ruling denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Corizon Medical Services and other defendants. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's opinion. The appellate court also denied Davis' motion to appoint counsel and dispensed with oral arguments.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 13-7526

    JAMES DAVIS,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    CORIZON
    MEDICAL
    SERVICES,
    f/k/a
    Correctional
    Medical
    Services; WARDEN KATHLEEN GREEN; TERRI PILCHER; LIEUTENANT
    SOUKUP; OFFICER FRITZ; BRUCE FORD; LYNNE COLE; JOHN DOE,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    James K. Bredar, District Judge.
    (1:12-cv-02051-JKB)

    Submitted:

    February 25, 2014

    Decided:

    March 4, 2014

    Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon E. Conners, Michelle


    Jacquelyn Marzullo, MARKS, ONEILL, OBRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY,
    P.C., Towson, Maryland; Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant
    Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James Davis appeals the district courts order denying
    relief

    on

    his

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    (2006)

    complaint.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.


    we

    affirm

    for

    the

    reasons

    stated

    by

    the

    We

    have

    Accordingly,

    district

    court.

    Davis v. Corizon Med. Servs, No. 1:12-cv-02051-JKB (D. Md. filed


    Aug. 22, 2013 & entered Aug. 23, 2013).
    to appoint counsel.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We deny Davis motion

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    this

    and

    argument

    court

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like