Michael Romero v. Phillip Morgan, No. 14-6516 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6516 MICHAEL R. ROMERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PHILLIP MORGAN, All individually and in their official capacity; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, (DPSCS), All individually and in their official capacity; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, All individually and in their official capacity; CORIZON HEALTH CARE SERVICES, All individually and in their official capacity; SADIK ALI, MD; ASHOK KRISHNASWAMY, MD; OFFICER S. A. WILSON; ASRESAHEGN GETACHEW, MD; BON SECOURS BALTIMORE HEALTH SYSTEMS, All individually and in their official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:13-cv-00625-DKC) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 29, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael R. Romero, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland; Jennifer E. Cameron, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael R. Romero appeals the district court s orders dismissing his claims against Defendants Phillip Morgan and Officer S. A. Wilson and granting summary judgment to Defendants Corizon Health Care Services, Sadik Ali, MD, Asresahegn Getachew, MD, and Wexford Health Sources, Incorporated, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Romero v. Morgan, No. July 8:13-cv-00625-DKC (D. Md. facts contentions are adequately this and argument materials before court oral & We legal with 4 Mar. 20, 2014). and dispense Mar. argument 17, because presented would 2013; not the in the 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.