Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mitchell v. Uhep, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    1) Steven Mitchell appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Benjamin Uhep, a physician, and J. McCarthy, an administrator. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error after reviewing the record and district court's opinion. 3) The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-09-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6830

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Steven Mitchell appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Benjamin Uhep, a physician, and J. McCarthy, an administrator. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error after reviewing the record and district court's opinion. 3) The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Mitchell v. Uhep, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Steven Mitchell appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Benjamin Uhep, a physician, and J. McCarthy, an administrator. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error after reviewing the record and district court's opinion. 3) The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 01-6830

    STEVEN MITCHELL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    BENJAMIN UHEP, Physician; J. MCCARTHY, Administrator/C.M.S.,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (CA-01-495-AM)

    Submitted:

    September 20, 2001

    Decided:

    September 27, 2001

    Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Steven Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Steven Mitchell appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    no reversible error.
    the district court.
    Apr. 18, 2001).

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of


    Mitchell v. Uhep, No. CA-01-495-AM (E.D. Va.

    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

    You might also like