Court Opinion

ID: 9957258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 21:01:40.897057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:14.943200
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6716      Doc: 22         Filed: 04/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6716

        IKEMEFUNA CHUKWURAH,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CORIZON HEALTH CARE; DR. YONAS SISAY; DR. CONTAH NIMELY; DR.
        OKOYE; ROBERT L. GREEN,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Paula Xinis, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00212-PX)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 2, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ikemefuna Chukwurah, Appellant Pro Se. Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, MARKS,
        O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland; Samuel Thomas
        Wolf, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland, for
        Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6716         Doc: 22         Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ikemefuna Chukwurah appeals the district court’s order granting summary

        judgment to the individual Defendants in part and dismissing in part Chukwurah’s

        amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. ∗          We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Chukwurah v. Corizon

        Health Care, No. 1:22-cv-00212-PX (D. Md. June 29, 2023). We deny Chukwurah’s

        motion to appoint counsel. 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

               ∗
                   The district court entered a final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

                                                       2