Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Steven E. Jones v. Doctor Getachew, Director CMS, Correctional Medical System, in Their Individual and Official Capacity As Health Care Providers, 59 F.3d 166, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views1 page
    Steven Jones filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against prison medical providers alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny relief to Steven Jones.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-06-26 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 59 F.3d 166 Docket: 95-6365

    Original Title

    Steven E. Jones v. Doctor Getachew, Director Cms, Correctional Medical System, in Their Individual and Official Capacity as Health Care Providers, 59 F.3d 166, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Steven Jones filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against prison medical providers alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny relief to Steven Jones.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views1 page

    Steven E. Jones v. Doctor Getachew, Director CMS, Correctional Medical System, in Their Individual and Official Capacity As Health Care Providers, 59 F.3d 166, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Steven Jones filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against prison medical providers alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny relief to Steven Jones.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    59 F.

    3d 166
    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished
    dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law
    of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the
    Fourth Circuit.

    Steven E. JONES, Plaintiff--Appellant,


    v.
    Doctor GETACHEW, Director; CMS, Correctional Medical
    System, in their individual and official capacity
    as health care providers, Defendants--Appellees.
    No. 95-6365.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: May 18, 1995.
    Decided: June 26, 1995.

    Steven E. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews, Regina M.


    Dufresne, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district
    court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
    reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Getachew, No. CA-94-3074-S (D. Md.
    Feb. 28, 1995). 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