Antonio Ortiz v. George Solomon, No. 19-6456 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6456 ANTONIO MEDRANO ORTIZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEORGE T. SOLOMON; PAULA SMITH; MONICA BOND; CARLTON JOYNER; DONNIE RAYNOR; DR. METIKO; WILLIAM ELDERDICE; RODNIQUE RIVERS; MATTHEW BAUM; DR. MCKENZIE; NURSE GODDARD; OFFICER OBI; SGT. THAYER, Defendants - Appellees, and MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR AT CENTRAL PRISON; MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR AT HARNETT PRISON; MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR AT CALEDONIA PRISON; MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR AT WARREN PRISON; MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR AT TROY PRISON; MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR AT LANESBORO PRISON; MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR AT ALEXANDER PRISON; MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR AT MARION PRISON; DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER AT MARION PRISON; DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER AT CENTRAL PRISON; DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER AT HARNETT PRISON; DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER AT CALEDONIA PRISON; DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER AT WARREN PRISON; DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER AT LANESBORO PRISON; DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER AT ALEXANDER PRISON; DIRECTOR OF THE MEDICAL UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD; DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; D. DAVIS; JESSICA REID , Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-ct-03251-FL) Submitted: September 26, 2019 Decided: September 30, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Medrano Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se. Orlando Luis Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, Madeleine Michelle Pfefferle, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Carl Moeller Newman, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Antonio Ortiz appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ortiz v. Solomon, No. 5:15-ct-03251-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 2019). 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.