Tisdell v. Bullock
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.
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Tisdell v. Bullock, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tisdell-v-bullock-ca4-2009.