Fields v. Rubenstein

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 29, 2004
Docket04-7140
StatusUnpublished

This text of Fields v. Rubenstein (Fields v. Rubenstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fields v. Rubenstein, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7140

STEWART L. FIELDS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner; WILLIAM S. HANIES, Warden; BILL ESLIE, Associate Warden of Operations; BOBBY HAMRICK, Medical Administrator; CLIFFTON HYRE, M.D., O.D.; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF RISKS AND INSURANCES MANAGEMENT,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-2)

Submitted: November 18, 2003 Decided: November 29, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steward L. Fields, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Stewart L. Fields appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action and denying several

motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Fields v. Rubenstein, No. CA-04-2 (N.D.W. Va. May 28,

& June 15, 2004). We grant Fields’ motion to dismiss John and Jane

Doe as parties to the appeal. We deny Fields’ motions for

appointment of counsel, injunctive relief and damages, and service

of three Appellees. 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

- 3 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fields v. Rubenstein, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fields-v-rubenstein-ca4-2004.