Case ID: f-appx_579/html/0215-01.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

Michael R. ROMERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Phillip MORGAN, All individually and in their official capacity; Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, (DPSCS), All individually and in their official capacity; Wexford Health Sources, Incorporated, All individually and in their official capacity; Corizon Health Care Services, All individually and in their official capacity; Sadik Ali, MD; Ashok Krishnaswamy, MD; Officer S.A. Wilson; Asresahegn Getachew, MD; Bon Secours Baltimore Health Systems, All individually and in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-6516.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 24, 2014.
    Decided: July 29, 2014.
    Michael R. Romero, Appellant pro se. Gina Marie Smith, Meyers, Rodbell & Rosenbaum, PA, Riverdale, Maryland; Jennifer E. Cameron, Michelle Jacquelyn Marzullo, Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Ap-pellees.
    Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael R. Romero appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his claims against Defendants Phillip Morgan and Officer S.A. Wilson and granting summary judgment to Defendants Corizon Health Care Services, Sadik Ali, MD, Asresahegn Getachew, MD, and Wexford Health Sources, Incorporated, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Romero v. Morgan, No. 8:13-cv-00625-DKC, 2014 WL 1154037 (D.Md. Mar. 4 & July 17, 2013; Mar. 20, 2014). We dispense 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.