Marshall v. Abbasi , 109 F. App'x 609 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7045
KALVIN MARSHALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOCTOR ABBASI, Medical Doctor; MS. STAZEWSKI,
Medical Nurse,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-02-517-GBL)
Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kalvin Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. John David McChesney, RAWLS &
MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kalvin Marshall appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.1 We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court.2 See
Marshall v. Abbasi, No. CA-02-517-GBL (E.D. Va. Sept. 17, 2003 &
June 3, 2004).3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
1
Marshall’s failure to present argument in his informal brief
as to the district court’s dismissal of his claims against Ms.
Stazewski results in waiver of those claims on appeal. See Local
Rule 34(b).
2
While the district court applied the standards governed by
the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment, as a pretrial detainee, Marshall’s claim of inadequate
medical care is governed by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16
(1979). However, with respect to claims of deliberate indifference
to medical needs, a pretrial detainee’s due process rights are co-
extensive with a convicted prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.
Hill v. Nicodemus, 979 F.2d 987, 990-92 (4th Cir. 1992).
3
To the extent Marshall seeks to raise claims on appeal not
first presented to the district court, we decline to consider those
claims.
- 2 -