Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jonathan Ojeda v. Dr. Procter, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Jonathan Ojeda appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in Ojeda v. Procter, No. 2:10-cv-00126-JPB-DJJ (N.D. W. Va. June 16, 2011). Oral argument was dispensed with because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court and additional argument would not aid in the decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-10-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6801

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Jonathan Ojeda appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in Ojeda v. Procter, No. 2:10-cv-00126-JPB-DJJ (N.D. W. Va. June 16, 2011). Oral argument was dispensed with because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court and additional argument would not aid in the decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    Jonathan Ojeda v. Dr. Procter, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Jonathan Ojeda appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in Ojeda v. Procter, No. 2:10-cv-00126-JPB-DJJ (N.D. W. Va. June 16, 2011). Oral argument was dispensed with because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court and additional argument would not aid in the decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling.

    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. 11-6801

    JONATHAN OJEDA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DR. PROCTER, sued individually and as an Agent of Wexford
    Medical Sources; TRISTEN TENNY, sued individually and as
    Agent of Wexford Medical Resources; ADRIAN HOKE, sued
    individually and in his Official Capacity; WEXFORD MEDICAL
    SOURCES, sued as a Corporation, working within the State of
    West Virginia,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
    John Preston Bailey,
    Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00126-JPB-DJJ)

    Submitted:

    September 13, 2011

    Decided:

    October 7, 2011

    Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jonathan Ojeda, Appellant Pro Se.


    Philip Cameron Petty, ROSE
    PADDEN & PETTY, LC, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellees
    Procter and Tenny.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jonathan

    Ojeda

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying


    relief

    on

    his

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    (2006)

    complaint.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.


    we

    affirm

    for

    the

    reasons

    stated

    by

    the

    We

    have

    Accordingly,

    district

    court.

    Ojeda v. Procter, No. 2:10-cv-00126-JPB-DJJ (N.D. W. Va. June


    16, 2011).
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like