Bruman Alvarez v. Corizon, No. 16-6564 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6564 BRUMAN STALIN ALVAREZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CORIZON, LLC, f/k/a Correctional Medical Services, Incorporated, Regional; MOTTI MULLETA, M.D., Medical Provider; BARBARA STEEL, Supervisor Medical Provider; JOHN MOSS, P.A. Physician Assistant; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cv-00179-WDQ) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruman Stalin Alvarez, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Marie Smith, Amy E. Askew, Ryan Alexander Mitchell, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bruman Stalin Alvarez appeals the district court’s orders granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing Alvarez’s civil complaint. In his informal appellate brief, Alvarez fails to challenge the district court’s reasons for dismissing his complaint. Accordingly, Alvarez has waived appellate review of those issues. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”). Because Alvarez does not have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel during his civil proceedings, his claim that appointed counsel committed a fraud upon the court by filing an inadequate complaint is without merit. See Pitts v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1279, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We deny Wexford Health Sources’ motion to dismiss. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before this court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.