Kenneth Nickoson v. Rachael Baumgardner

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Kenneth Nickoson v. Rachael Baumgardner

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7105 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7105

KENNETH LEE NICKOSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RACHAEL BAUMGARDNER, RN; ALAN BARNETT, MD; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

GEORGE TRENT, Warden; KEVIN HALLORAN, Chairman of the Board,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00087-GMG)

Submitted: January 17, 2024 Decided: February 14, 2025

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7105 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Kenneth Lee Nickoson, Appellant Pro Se. Jordan K. Herrick, James William Marshall, III, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7105 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/14/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lee Nickoson appeals the district court’s order accepting in part the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Nickoson’s

42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint, in which Nickoson alleged that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Although the district court

erred in its standard of review of Nickoson’s objections, Nickoson failed to object, so he

forfeited any challenge on this point. We find that the magistrate judge failed to apply de

novo review of Nickoson’s motion to dismiss, but having reviewed the record, we do not

find reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Nickoson’s motion to appoint counsel, and we

affirm the district court’s order. Nickoson v. Trent, No. 3:22-cv-00087-GMG (N.D. W. Va.

Sept. 21, 2023). 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Unpublished