Bruman Alvarez v. Corizon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to dismiss appeal [999827922-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00179-WDQ. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999972023]. [16-6564]

Appeal: 16-6564

Doc: 33

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6564

BRUMAN STALIN ALVAREZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORIZON,
LLC,
f/k/a
Correctional
Medical
Services,
Incorporated, Regional; MOTTI MULLETA, M.D., Medical Provider;
BARBARA STEEL, Supervisor Medical Provider; JOHN MOSS, P.A.
Physician Assistant; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:10-cv-00179-WDQ)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Decided:

November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruman Stalin Alvarez, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Marie Smith, Amy E.
Askew, Ryan Alexander Mitchell, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA,
Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6564

Doc: 33

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Bruman Stalin Alvarez appeals the district court’s orders
granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss or for judgment on the
pleadings

and

dismissing

Alvarez’s

civil

complaint.

In

his

informal appellate brief, Alvarez fails to challenge the district
court’s

reasons

for

dismissing

his

complaint.

Accordingly,

Alvarez has waived appellate review of those issues.

See 4th Cir.

R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in
the

informal

brief.”).

Because

Alvarez

does

not

have

a

constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel during his
civil proceedings, his claim that appointed counsel committed a
fraud upon the court by filing an inadequate complaint is without
merit.

See Pitts v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1279, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir.

2012).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.

We

deny Wexford Health Sources’ motion to dismiss.

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

2