794 Fed.Appx. 348 (4th Cir. 2020), 19-7281, Curry v. Ashraf

Docket Nº:19-7281
Citation:794 Fed.Appx. 348
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:Daryl J. CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mahboob ASHRAF, M.D.; Dawn Hawk; Tara Cottrell; North Branch Correctional, Defendants-Appellees.
Attorney:Daryl J. Curry, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Conrad Meister, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland, for Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Case Date:February 24, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 348

794 Fed.Appx. 348 (4th Cir. 2020)

Daryl J. CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Mahboob ASHRAF, M.D.; Dawn Hawk; Tara Cottrell; North Branch Correctional, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-7281

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

February 24, 2020

Submitted: February 20, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-02439-GLR)

Daryl J. Curry, Appellant Pro Se.

Douglas Conrad Meister, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daryl Curry appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Curry v. Ashraf, No. 1:18-cv-02439-GLR, 2019 WL 3997084 (D. Md. Aug. 23, 2019). We also deny Curry’s motion to assign 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

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP