James Frasier v. Carolina Ctr for Occup. Health, No. 16-1114 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1114 JAMES LAMAR FRASIER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLINA CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, Defendant – Appellee, and COUNTY OF CHARLESTON; CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; AL CANNON, JR., in his official capacity as Sheriff of Charleston County; CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; MITCH LUCAS, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Charleston County Detention Center; CORIZON HEALTH, INCORPORATED, f/k/a Prison Health Services, Incorporated; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:11-cv-03431-DCN) Submitted: January 19, 2017 Decided: February 24, 2017 Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian C. Duffy, Thomas A. Limehouse, Jr., DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen L. Brown, Russell G. Hines, YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James Lamar Frasier appeals the district court’s order denying his renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial, following the jury verdict in favor of Carolina Center for Occupational Health, LLC, in Frasier’s medical malpractice action. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Frasier v. Carolina Center for Occupational Health, LLC, No. 4:11-cv-03431DCN (D.S.C. Jan. 4, 2016). 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 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.