McCoy v. Rosenblatt

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 22, 2008
Docket08-6440
StatusUnpublished

This text of McCoy v. Rosenblatt (McCoy v. Rosenblatt) 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
McCoy v. Rosenblatt, (4th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6440

FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RICHARD B. ROSENBLATT, Secretary Treatment Service; WALTER WIRSCHING, Director Inmate Health Care; MIMOSE DAZOULOUTE, Health Care Manager, Each Defendant sued Individual and Official Capacity; WILLIAM L. WILLIAMS; JACK J. CHAGWAY; PRISON HEALTH SERVICE, INCORPORATED; JONESSA MILKEN; JEAN L. BYASSEE; DERJE TESFAYE; ADEL GASHE; GETACHEN TEFFERRA, MD; SEDLY YOHANNES, MD; ABRAHAM GEDE MICHAEL; MARY ROLLES; CYNTHIA SINCLAIN; PEGGY BONOVICH,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

KEVIN HOY, MD,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:05-cv-00480-WDQ)

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 22, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Thomas Patrick Turgeon, ADELMAN, SHEFF & SMITH, LLC, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. McCoy v. Rosenblatt, No. 1:05-cv-00480-WDQ (D. Md.

Mar. 17, 2008). We deny McCoy’s motion to appoint counsel and

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

Bluebook (online)
McCoy v. Rosenblatt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccoy-v-rosenblatt-ca4-2008.