John Fishback v. Depuy Orthopaedics, No. 13-6551 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6551 JOHN FISHBACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS; AHNAD MURTHI, MD.; MICHAEL O BRIAN; LABID SYAD, MD.; NAO B. ODEFLE, MD.; BARBARA NEWLON; SHERON BAUCOM, MD.; ASRESAHEGN GETACHEW, MD.; COLIN OTTEY, MD.; MAJID ARNAUT, MD.; GARY MAYNARD, Secretary; J. M. STOUFFER, Commissioner; BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; WARDEN BISHOP; SUDAIR KATHURIA, MD.; CORIZON; UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL SYSTEM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-00648-JFM) Submitted: August 6, 2013 Decided: August 23, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Fishback, Appellant Pro Se. Indira Kavita Sharma, Jason M. St. John, SAUL EWING, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Michelle Jacquelyn Marzullo, MARKS, O NEILL, O BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John Fishback appeals the district court s orders denying his motions and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Fishback v. Depuy Orthopaedics, No. 1:12-cv-00648-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 28, 2013; Mar. 21, 2013; Mar. 13, 2013; Mar. 7, 2013; Feb. 19, 2013; Sept. 17, 2012; July 31, 2012; June 26, 2012; filed Mar. 1, 2012 & entered Mar. 2, 2012). We deny dispense Fishback s with contentions are oral motions for argument adequately appointment because presented in the the of counsel. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.