Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Dove v. Quality Dental, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Arthur Carl Dove on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Quality Dental Service, Dr. Cynthia Idzik, and Dr. Oswald Warner. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Dove v. Quality Dental, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Arthur Carl Dove on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Quality Dental Service, Dr. Cynthia Idzik, and Dr. Oswald Warner. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-06-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7826

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Arthur Carl Dove on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Quality Dental Service, Dr. Cynthia Idzik, and Dr. Oswald Warner. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Dove v. Quality Dental, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Arthur Carl Dove on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Quality Dental Service, Dr. Cynthia Idzik, and Dr. Oswald Warner. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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. 98-7826

    ARTHUR CARL DOVE,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    QUALITY DENTAL SERVICE; CYNTHIA IDZIK, Doctor,
    DDS; OSWALD WARNER, Doctor, DDS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-98-157-AW)

    Submitted:

    May 25, 1999

    Decided:

    June 1, 1999

    Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Joseph Bernard Tetrault, PRISM, Chestertown, Maryland, for Appellant.
    Kevin Bock Karpinski, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Arthur Carl Dove appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    no reversible error.
    the district court.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of


    See Dove v. Quality Dental Serv., No. CA-98-

    157-AW (D. Md. Nov. 23, 1998).

    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