James Frasier v. Carolina Ctr for Occup. Health

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

James Frasier v. Carolina Ctr for Occup. Health

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1114

JAMES LAMAR FRASIER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAROLINA CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

COUNTY OF CHARLESTON; CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; AL CANNON, JR., in his official capacity as Sheriff of Charleston County; CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; MITCH LUCAS, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Charleston County Detention Center; CORIZON HEALTH, INCORPORATED, f/k/a Prison Health Services, Incorporated; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:11-cv-03431-DCN)

Submitted: January 19, 2017 Decided: February 24, 2017

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian C. Duffy, Thomas A. Limehouse, Jr., DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen L. Brown, Russell G. Hines, YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

James Lamar Frasier appeals the district court’s order

denying his renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and

motion for a new trial, following the jury verdict in favor of

Carolina Center for Occupational Health, LLC, in Frasier’s medical

malpractice action. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the

record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Frasier v.

Carolina Center for Occupational Health, LLC, No. 4:11-cv-03431-

DCN (D.S.C. Jan. 4, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished