Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bush v. Ulep, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Bernard Bush filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against a doctor, Benjamin Ulep, which the district court denied relief on. Bush then filed a motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, which was also denied. Bush appealed both rulings. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's rulings and affirmed the denial of relief for the reasons stated by the district court. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-06-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6478

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Bernard Bush filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against a doctor, Benjamin Ulep, which the district court denied relief on. Bush then filed a motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, which was also denied. Bush appealed both rulings. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's rulings and affirmed the denial of relief for the reasons stated by the district court. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    Bush v. Ulep, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Bernard Bush filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against a doctor, Benjamin Ulep, which the district court denied relief on. Bush then filed a motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, which was also denied. Bush appealed both rulings. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's rulings and affirmed the denial of relief for the reasons stated by the district court. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-6478

    BERNARD BUSH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    BENJAMIN J. ULEP, Medical Doctor,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (2:08-cv-00053-RBS-FBS)

    Submitted:

    May 22, 2008

    Decided:

    June 2, 2008

    Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Bernard Bush, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Bernard Bush appeals the district courts orders denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint and his motion
    filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
    find no reversible error.
    stated

    by

    the

    We have reviewed the record and

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

    district

    court.

    Bush

    v.

    Ulep,

    2:08-cv-00053-RBS-FBS (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2008; Mar. 18, 2008).

    No.
    We

    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like