Louis Rychwalski, Jr. v. CMS

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-02082-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999563276]. Mailed to: Rychwalski. [14-7365]

Appeal: 14-7365

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7365

LOUIS RYCHWALSKI, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CMS; WARDEN KATHLEEN GREEN; CPT. ROBERT J. MOORE; PAUL
ZIOLKOWSKI; WILLIAM MAYCOCK; ROBERT C. MCGEE; JOHN BROMLEY;
CHARLES WESTBROOK; CRAIG REID; WILLIAM FISHER; WEXFORD
HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; MARYAM MESSFOROSH, P.A.; JASON CLEM,
M.D.; BRUCE FORD, P.A.; PAUL MATERA, M.D.; TERRY DAVIS,
P.A.; CORIZON, LLC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-02082-GLR)

Submitted:

January 26, 2015

Decided:

April 13, 2015

Before KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis Rychwalski, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Michelle Jacquelyn
Marzullo, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C.,
Towson,
Maryland;
Stephanie
Judith
Lane-Weber,
Assistant
Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS,
RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees.

Appeal: 14-7365

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7365

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Louis

Rychwalski,

Jr.,

appeals

the

district

court’s

order granting summary judgment to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) civil rights action.
and find no reversible error.
reasons

stated

by

the

We have reviewed the record

Accordingly, we affirm for the

district

court.

Rychwalski

v.

CMS,

No. 1:13-cv-02082-GLR (D. Md. Aug. 25, 2014).

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3