Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1996

Andrew Nichols v. Earl Beshears, Warden Prison Health Services, Incorporated Doctor Calderon Joseph Griffin, M.D. Kevin Johnson David Bloom, Director

Andrew Nichols v. Earl Beshears, Warden Prison Health Services, Incorporated Doctor Calderon Joseph Griffin, M.D. Kevin Johnson David Bloom, Director
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided April 4, 1996
81 F.3d 150; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 13995; 1996 WL 156482 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Andrew Nichols v. Earl Beshears, Warden Prison Health Services, Incorporated Doctor Calderon Joseph Griffin, M.D. Kevin Johnson David Bloom, Director

Opinion

81 F.3d 150

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Andrew NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Earl BESHEARS, Warden; Prison Health Services,
Incorporated; Doctor Calderon; Joseph Griffin,
M.D.; Kevin Johnson; David Bloom,
Director, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7486.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 21, 1996.
Decided: April 4, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-374-WMN)

Andrew Nichols, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Kushner Kline, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, MD; Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, BILLINGSLEY, SHIPLEY, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, Riverdale, MD; Daniel Karp, Kevin Bock Karpinski, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nichols v. Beshears, No. CA-95-374-WM (D.Md. Sept. 1, 1995). 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑