Georgia v. Peninsula Regional
Georgia v. Peninsula Regional
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7245
CALVIN GEORGIA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PENINSULA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; DOCTOR KLUG; WICOMICO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; ROBIN ROBERTS; WICOMICO COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
GEORGIA TINGLE; DOCTOR SHARMA,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 98-33-S)
Submitted: November 30, 1998 Decided: December 21, 1998
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Georgia, Appellant Pro Se. John Russell Penhallegon, Gary Elliott Dumer, Jr., CORNBLATT, BENNETT, PENHALLEGON & ROBERSON, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; David Randolph Thompson, COWDREY, THOMP- SON & KARSTEN, P.A., Easton, Maryland; Kevin Bock Karpinski, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
2 PER CURIAM:
Calvin Georgia appeals the district court's order denying his
motion for default judgment/summary judgment on his
42 U.S.C.A. § 1983(West Supp. 1998) complaint and granting summary judgment in
favor of Defendants-Appellees. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion and conclude the court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Georgia’s motion for default judgment against
Appellee Klug based on Klug’s failure to timely answer Georgia’s
complaint. We also conclude the court properly granted summary
judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees because there was no
genuine issue of material fact and the Defendants-Appellees were
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the district court. Georgia v. Peninsula Reg’l
Med. Ctr., No. CA-98-33-S (D. Md. July 29, 1998). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished