William Murphey v. Gary Maynard

Filing 920100303

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6873 WILLIAM A. MURPHEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GARY MAYNARD, Secy-DPSCS; JOHN ROWLEY, Commissioner of Corrections; KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden, ECI; GREGORY WARD, ARP Coordinator, ECI; STEVEN G. TURNAMIAN, M.D.; DAVID MATHIS, M.D.; LYNN COLE, Reg. Manager-CMS; KEVIN JOHNSON, P.A. CMS; MELISSA HIPON HEXON, RN; DOCTOR JAHLALI, M.D.; MARYAM MESSAFORASH, P.A., Defendants Appellees, and DAVID C. DONAVAN, Dr.; CHARLES MEEHAM, Staff PRISM; STEPHEN MEEHAM, Staff PRISM; PATRICK THOMAS, Staff Att. PRISM, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:08-cv-01711-DKC) Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 3, 2010 Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William A. Murphey, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, Katrina J. Dennis, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William A. Murphey appeals the district court's orders denying his motion to appoint counsel, denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint, and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated Murphey v. Maynard, No. 8:08-cv-0171123, 2009 & entered Jan. 26, 2009; We by the district court. DKC (D. Md. filed Jan. Mar. 16, 2009; filed Apr. 15, 2009 & entered Apr. 16, 2009). deny Murphey's motion for a transcript at government expense and 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 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?