Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Jones v. Kavanaugh, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Jones filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and medical staff alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied Jones relief and he appealed. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court documents.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Jones v. Kavanaugh, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Charles Jones filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and medical staff alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied Jones relief and he appealed. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court documents.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-12-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7283

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Charles Jones filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and medical staff alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied Jones relief and he appealed. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court documents.

    Copyright:

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

    Jones v. Kavanaugh, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Jones filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and medical staff alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied Jones relief and he appealed. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court documents.

    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. 03-7283

    CHARLES JONES,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JACK KAVANAUGH; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; DOCTOR
    TESFAYE,
    Director;
    JOHN
    MOSS,
    Physician
    Assistant; OFFICER HILTON; EDWARD TAMES,
    Lieutenant; CHRISTOPHER OZOUKWU, Officer;
    THOMAS RESHKE, Nurse; PATRICE DEWITT, Pharmacy
    Nurse; OFFICER ROBINSON,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    William M. Nickerson, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-02-3409-RDB)

    Submitted:

    November 19, 2003

    Decided:

    December 4, 2003

    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
    General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Jones appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    We have reviewed

    the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for


    the reasons stated by the district court.

    See Jones v. Kavanaugh,

    No. CA-02-3409-RDB (D. Md. filed July 22, 2003; entered July 23,
    2003).

    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