Jean B. Germain v. Warden Frank Bishop, Jr., No. 17-6788 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6788 JEAN B. GERMAIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN FRANK BISHOP, JR.; BRUCE A. LILLER, Chief of Psychology; WILLIAM BEAMAN, Director of Nursing; JANETTE CLARK; KRISTA BILAK; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCE, INC., Defendants – Appellees, and JANEATTE SIMMONS, Psychiatry Nurse; C.O. II CODY GILPIN; CO II T. DORCON, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-01421-JFM) Submitted: October 24, 2017 Decided: November 15, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jean Bernard Germain, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie Smith, Douglas Conrad Meister, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Jean B. Germain appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and for reconsideration of that denial. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no abuse of discretion. See Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 229 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating standard of review of order denying preliminary injunction); U.S. ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 866 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating standard of review of order denying reconsideration). We also decline Germain’s request to reassign his case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We are unpersuaded by the Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal, and therefore deny it. 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.