David Montgomery v. Conmed, Inc., No. 16-1133 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 22, 2016.

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1133 DAVID MICHAEL MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CONMED, INC., Defendant - Appellee, and JASON BINGHAM, Cpl.; JOHN CARHART, Sgt.; SENIOR TROOPER CLAYCOMB; FRANK FORNOSS, Str.; STRED WINKLER, Senior Trooper; SGT. GALLIGAN; SCOTT PEDERSON; K. R. JENKINS, Officer; JAMIE GROVER, Officer; CHRIS TAYLOR, Tfc.; EDWARD EICHER, Sgt.; TPR BISHOP; THE CARROLL COUNTY JAIL; MR. HARDINGER, Warden; ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY POLICE; STATE POLICE WESTMINSTER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00930-ELH) Submitted: February 17, 2017 Decided: Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. February 24, 2017 David Michael Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Althauser, Megan Green Anderson, Eric Matthew Rigatuso, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: David Michael Montgomery appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Conmed, Inc., on Montgomery’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. confine our brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). brief does review not to the challenge issues the raised in On appeal, we the Appellant’s Because Montgomery’s informal basis for the district court’s disposition, Montgomery has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. 2014) (“The Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny Montgomery’s motions for appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal 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.