Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Taylor v. Turpin, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Christopher Cornelius Taylor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several doctors and medical staff. The district court denied relief to Taylor and the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision without finding any reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's reasoning for denying relief to Taylor in his civil rights complaint against the medical defendants.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-03-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6130

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Christopher Cornelius Taylor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several doctors and medical staff. The district court denied relief to Taylor and the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision without finding any reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's reasoning for denying relief to Taylor in his civil rights complaint against the medical defendants.

    Copyright:

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

    Taylor v. Turpin, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Christopher Cornelius Taylor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several doctors and medical staff. The district court denied relief to Taylor and the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision without finding any reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's reasoning for denying relief to Taylor in his civil rights complaint against the medical defendants.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 03-6130

    CHRISTOPHER CORNELIUS TAYLOR,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES M. TURPIN, Dr., Physician at Marion
    Correctional Institution; EMIDIO J. FELICIONE,
    Doctor at Central Prison; ELLA MARKLAND, M.D.,
    Doctor at Marion Correctional Institution;
    NURSE CONDREY, a Registered Nurse at Marion
    Correctional Institution; THE UTILIZATION
    REVIEW BOARD, Board of Doctors at Central
    Prison (names unknown); JOHN MORGAN; P. A.
    CREENSHAW, Physician at Central Prison,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-02-283-MU-1)

    Submitted:

    March 6, 2003

    Decided:

    March 17, 2003

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Christopher Cornelius Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Christopher Cornelius Taylor appeals the district courts
    order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    We

    have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,


    we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

    See Taylor v.

    Turpin, No. CA-02-283-MU-1 (W.D.N.C. filed Dec. 30, 2002, entered


    Jan. 3, 2003).

    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