U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1998

Jones v. Corcoran

Jones v. Corcoran
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 2, 1998

Jones v. Corcoran

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6111

NICHOLAS WARNER JONES, a/k/a Charles Jones, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden, Maryland House of Correction-Annex; KATHLEEN LANDERKIN, Lieu- tenant, Administrative Remedy Coordinator; MICHAEL R. HILL, L.P.N., Maryland Department of Correction Infection Control Department; S.

ROBERTSON, R.N., Maryland Department of Cor- rection Infection Control Department; PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor, The State House; BISHOP L. ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR., Commissioner of Division of Correction; WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden of The Jessup, Maryland House of Correction Annex; CHERYL SAUNDERS, R.N.; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Health Contractor, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97- 350-L)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 2, 1998

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas Warner Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, Karl Joseph Nelson, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) 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. Jones v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-350-L (D. Md. Jan. 13, 1998).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions 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.