Summary
allowing untimely opposition to be deemed timely and considered by the Court
Summary of this case from Wilson v. Navy Fed. Credit UnionOpinion
22-6968 23-6232
08-01-2023
BRANDON ROBERTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; JOHN/JANE DOE DEFENDANT; KEITH LYONS, Acting Warden of JCI; JEFFREY NINES, Warden of NBCI; WAYNE WEBB, former Commissioner, Maryland Division of Correction; J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden of MCTC, Defendants - Appellees. BRANDON ROBERTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; JOHN/JANE DOE; JEFFREY NINES, Warden at N.B.C.I.; WAYNE WEBB, Former Commissioner, Maryland Division of Correction; KEITH LYONS, Acting Warden of JCI; J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden of MCTC, Defendants - Appellees.
Brandon Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Marie Smith, Samuel Thomas Wolf, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 20, 2023
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00340-ELH)
Brandon Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.
Gina Marie Smith, Samuel Thomas Wolf, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Roberts appeals the district court's orders in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, dismissing the claims against Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and denying Roberts' motion for discovery. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. Roberts v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00340-ELH (D. Md. filed July 26, 2022 &entered July 27, 2022; Dec. 7, 2022; filed Feb. 10, 2023 &entered Feb. 13, 2023). We deny Roberts' motion for clarification and correction of filings and 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