Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Davis v. Stanford, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Lee Davis, a prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and healthcare providers alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court denied Davis relief and he appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court also denied Davis' motion for summary reversal.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Davis v. Stanford, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Robert Lee Davis, a prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and healthcare providers alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court denied Davis relief and he appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court also denied Davis' motion for summary reversal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-05-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7911

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robert Lee Davis, a prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and healthcare providers alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court denied Davis relief and he appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court also denied Davis' motion for summary reversal.

    Copyright:

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

    Davis v. Stanford, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Lee Davis, a prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and healthcare providers alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court denied Davis relief and he appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court also denied Davis' motion for summary reversal.

    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. 04-7911

    ROBERT LEE DAVIS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    L. STANFORD, Medical Administrator; PAGE TRUE,
    Warden; K. EMRAN, Prison Doctor; PRISON
    HEALTHCARE SERVICES, Healthcare Provider; FRED
    SCHILLINGS, Director of Medical Services;
    CAPTAIN MILLER, Building Captain; J. LEWIS,
    Counselor,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-03-1166-1)

    Submitted:

    April 25, 2005

    Decided:

    May 10, 2005

    Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Noelle Leigh Shaw-Bell, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Lee Davis appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We have

    Accordingly, we

    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    See Davis v.

    Stanford, No. CA-03-1166-1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 2004).

    We also deny

    Davis motion for summary reversal. 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