Carroll Gaylord v. Michael Stouffer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999227734-2], [999175597-3] Originating case number: 8:12-cv-02477-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999277797]. Mailed to: Carroll Gaylord. [13-7274]

Appeal: 13-7274

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/15/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7274

CARROLL GAYLORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. STOUFFER, Commissioner; CORIZON, INC., f/k/a
C.M.S., Medical Care Provider; BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden,
N.B.C.I.; MD COLIN OTTEY, Dr., N.B.C.I.; GREGG FLURY, P.A.,
N.B.C.I.; D. ADAMS, Head Nurse; MONICA METHENY, RN; STEVEN
BRAY, RN; AUTUMN DURST, RN; TIMBELIE ADAMS, RN; WILLIAM
BEEMAN, RN; BREANNA BROWN, RN, N.B.C.I.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:12-cv-02477-DKC)

Submitted:

December 20, 2013

Decided:

January 15, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carroll Gaylord, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber,
Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Patricia H.
Beall, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson,
Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7274

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/15/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Carroll
granting

summary

Gaylord

appeals

judgment

to

the

district

Defendants

on

court’s
his

orders

claims

of

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), and denying his motion filed pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and find no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

Gaylord v. Stouffer, No. 8:12-cv-02477-

DKC (D. Md. June 12, 2013; July 11, 2013).
motions

to

appoint

counsel

and

dispense

We deny Gaylord’s
with

oral

argument

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

2