Case ID: f-appx_6/html/0200-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James T. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard A. LANHAM, Sr., Former Commissioner of Correction, Division of Correction; Thomas R. Corcoran, Former Warden of Maryland House of Correction-Annex, Division of Correction; James Murphy, Chief of Security, Maryland House of Correction-Annex; G.J. Duckett, CCMSII, Institutional Transfer Coordinator, Maryland House of Correction; Pam Sorenson, Case Management Supervisor, Maryland House of Correction-Annex; Major Tuthill, Maryland House of Correction-Annex; Correctional Officer Hylander, Maryland House of Correction-Annex; Tyrone Crowder, Maryland House of Correction-Annex; Correctional Medical Service, Incorporated, Maryland House of Correction-Annex; Howard County General Hospital, Incorporated; Robert B. Testani, DDS; Doctor Grojec, Medical Department (CMS), Maryland House of Correction-Annex; Doctor Yonas, Medical Department (CMS), Maryland House of Correction-Annex, in their personal and official capacities for their actions under color of state law, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-7648.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 22, 2001.
    Decided March 29, 2001.
    James T. Carter, pro se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Angela Michelle Eaves, Assistant Attorney General; Michael Evan Blumenfeld, Kramon & Graham, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit-Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

James T. Carter appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Carter v. Lanham, No. CA-99-2543-L (D.Md. filed Oct. 13, 2000; entered Oct. 16, 2000; filed Feb. 8, 2000; entered Feb. 9, 2000). 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.