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)
04-6809•Paul Winestock, Jr v. SEAN MCCAGH, Doctor
04-6809Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 20, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6809
PAUL WINESTOCK, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SEAN MCCAGH, Doctor; ROBERTS, Doctor; FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-2599-1-WMN)
Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Winestock, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Frederick William Goundry,
III, VARNER & GOUNDRY, Frederick, Maryland; Matthew Wayne Mellady,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Annapolis Junction, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Paul Winestock, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Winestock v. McCagh, No.
CA-03-2599-1-WMN (D. Md. Apr. 20, 2004). Winestock’s motion to
allow an attachment to his informal brief is denied. 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.