Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06395/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06395-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6395

MARTIN WALKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; DR. PAUL MATERA, M.D., 

Individual and Official Capacity; DR. ARESAHEGN GETACHEW; DR. 

MICHAEL DOUGHTY, D.P.M, individual and Official Capacity; 

BRUCE FORD, P.A., Individual and Official Capacity; JUDITH 

HEARTHWAY, N.P., Individual and Official Capacity; WARDEN 

KATHLEEN GREEN, Individual Capacity; ASSISTANT WARDEN RONALD 

DRYDEN, Individual Capacity; DR. JASON CLEM, M.D.; ROBERT 

HANKE; DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CAROLYN ATKINS; S. GUSTUS, 

Administrative Remedy Coordinator; C. SESSION, Administrative 

Remedy Coordinators,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:15-

cv-01889-JKB)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martin Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL 

& ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland; Lisa J. Russell, WARANCH & 

BROWN, LLC, Lutherville, Maryland; Ankush Nayar, OFFICE OF THE 

Appeal: 16-6395 Doc: 24 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6395 Doc: 24 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Martin Walker appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Walker v. Wexford 

Health Sources, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-01889-JKB (D. Md. Mar. 2, 2016). 

We deny Walker’s motion for appointment of counsel, and 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

Appeal: 16-6395 Doc: 24 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3