Bailey v. Freund
Bailey v. Freund
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7486
ANTHONY EUGENE BAILEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOCTOR FREUND, Medical Agent of the Richmond City Jail; LIEUTENANT WOMACK, Assistant Super- visor, Medical Agent of the Richmond City Jail; DOCTOR THOMPKINS, Medical Agent of the Richmond City Jail; CAPTAIN MINION, Super- visor, Medical Agent of the Richmond City Jail,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
NURSE SMITH; NURSE PARRISH,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-924-2)
Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Eugene Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Chandra Dore Lantz, HIRSCHLER, FLEISCHER, WEINBERG, COX & ALLEN, Richmond, Virginia; Elizabeth Stanulis Skilling, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia; Carlyle Randolph Wimbish, III, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Eugene Bailey appeals from the district court’s order
denying relief on his
42 U.S.C.A. § 1983(West Supp. 1999) com-
plaint. 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. See Bailey v. Freund, No. CA-
97-924-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 1999). We deny Bailey’s motion for
appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished