Curtis Williamson v. Richard Graham, Jr., No. 19-6209 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6209 CURTIS WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. RICHARD GRAHAM, JR., Warden; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED; DR. R. BARRERA; KIM MARTIN, RN; PEGGY MAHLER, PA; DOCTOR ASHRAF; DOCTOR JOUBERT, Defendants – Appellees, and JANET GILMORE, PA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01915-GLR) Submitted: September 30, 2019 Decided: December 10, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland, for Appellees Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Curtis Williamson appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment against him in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action, denying his motions for counsel, and denying Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williamson v. Graham, No. 1:17-cv-01915-GLR (D. Md. Jan. 3, 2018; Aug. 16, 2018; Sept. 26, 2018 & Feb. 6, 2019); see also Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating standard of review for denial of Rule 59(e) motion); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (stating standard of review for denial of counsel), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). 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.