Tisdell v. Bullock

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 24, 2009
Docket08-8433
StatusUnpublished

This text of Tisdell v. Bullock (Tisdell v. Bullock) 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
Tisdell v. Bullock, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8433

FRED MELVIN TISDELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TERRY BULLOCK, Superintendent Hoke Correctional Institution; CATHY WEBB, Unit Manager, Hoke C.I.; T. E. CRAIG, Correctional Officer, Hoke C.I.; AMY S. MACKEY, Physician's Assistant, Hoke C.I.; ANDREW BUSH, M.D., Physician, Duke Regional Hosp.; PHILLIP STOVER, M.D., Physician, N.C. Department of Corrections; KAY LOCKLEAR, R.N., Supervising Nurse, Lumberton Correctional Inst.; DUKE REGIONAL HOSPITAL; THEODIS BECK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00603-NCT-RAE)

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 24, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred Melvin Tisdell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Fred Melvin Tisdell appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006), as frivolous, malicious, or for

failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. Tisdell v. Bullock, No. 1:08-cv-

00603-NCT-RAE (M.D.N.C. Oct. 23, 2008). We deny Tisdell’s

motions for appointment of counsel, for a transcript at

government expense, for production of documents, to amend or

correct the caption, and for acknowledgement of the main

defendants on all forthcoming documents. 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

Bluebook (online)
Tisdell v. Bullock, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tisdell-v-bullock-ca4-2009.