Hill v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.
This text of 329 F. App'x 391 (Hill v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Daniel Webster Hill appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) suit. On appeal, Hill asserts that the district court erred in denying his request for appointment of counsel, misled him into believing counsel had been appointed, and improperly scheduled the due date for his reply brief to the motion for [392]*392summary judgment. Our review of the record reveals that the district court acted properly and did not abuse its wide discretion in such matters. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
329 F. App'x 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-correctional-medical-services-inc-ca4-2009.