The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-7665•Todd Emerson Baker v. HUNT, Nurse
02-7665Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 7, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7665
TODD EMERSON BAKER,
Plaintiff Appellant,
versus
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; KATHLEEN HAWK-
SAWYER, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons;
RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections; J. OATES, Hospital
Administrator; DOCTOR GAY, Medical
Administrator; DR. LAYBOURN, Institution
Physician; NURSE MALONEY, Medical Staff; J.
CAPPS, Institution Ombudsman; M. INMAN, RN,
Medical Staff Supervisor; DR. BRADLY;
SUPERVISOR BLOWE; V. HUNT, Nurse,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-01-472-2)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 7, 2003
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Todd Emerson Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;
Heather Marie Kofron, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Todd Emerson Baker appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the district court. See Baker v. District of
Columbia, No. CA-01-472-2 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 27, 2002 & entered
Sept. 30, 2002). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.