Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Glover v. Prime Care Medical, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    William Glover filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against various medical and corrections officials and entities. The district court denied relief and Glover appealed. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation to deny relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, stating the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-02-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7635

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    William Glover filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against various medical and corrections officials and entities. The district court denied relief and Glover appealed. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation to deny relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, stating the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Glover v. Prime Care Medical, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Glover filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against various medical and corrections officials and entities. The district court denied relief and Glover appealed. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation to deny relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, stating the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 99-7635

    WILLIAM KEVIN GLOVER,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    PRIME CARE MEDICAL COMPANY; PENNSYLVANIA
    INSTITUTIONAL
    HEALTH
    SERVICES;
    JOHN
    DOE
    MEDICAL COMPANY; NCCHC INCORPORATED; CARL
    HOFFMAN, Dr. D.O. President - Prime Care Medical Company; WILLIAM ANDERSON, Administration/
    Marketing Prime Care Medical; PAM FULTON,
    Medical Administrator - Prime Care Medical;
    JOHN T. MADDEN, Judge, Marshall County Circuit
    Court; WILLIAM DAVIS, Commissioner, Department
    of
    Corrections;
    GREGORY,
    X-Commissioner;
    NICHOLAS HUN, X-Commissioner; PAUL KIRBY,
    Warden, N.R.J.C.F; GEORGE E. TRENT, X-Warden;
    NORMAN WOOD, Dr.; RICHARD GLASS, Dr.; CARL
    LEGURSKY, X-Warden; TERESA WAID, Acting Warden; TIM WHITTINGTON, Acting Warden; ALL
    LIABLE INSURANCE COMPANIES, PER PERSON/PER
    COMPANY; MOUNT OLIVE CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge.
    (CA-98-1139-5)

    Submitted:

    February 10, 2000

    Decided:

    February 14, 2000

    Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    William Kevin Glover, Appellant Pro Se.


    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    William Glover appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on Glovers 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint.
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion
    accepting

    the

    magistrate

    reversible error.

    judges

    recommendation

    and

    find

    no

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

    district court. See Glover v. Prime Care Medical, No. CA-98-1139-5


    (S.D.W.Va. Nov. 18, 1999).

    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