DocketNumber: 95-7360
Filed Date: 4/23/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7360 BOBBY JUNIOR OLDHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICKY ANDERSON; RICKY JORDAN; LONNIE BELL, Sergeant; M. SMITH, Sergeant; SHIRLEY LYNCH, Nurse; CONNIE BARROW, Nurse; W. MARROW, Sergeant; KENNETH LANIER; MR. LAWRENCE; MR. CLIFTON; SGT. JENKINS; SERGEANT MOSELEY; OFFICER LASSITER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-404-5-CT-F) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 23, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Junior Oldham, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his42 U.S.C. § 1983
(1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Oldham v. Anderson, No. CA-94-404-5-CT-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 1995). We note that Appellant has failed to show any sig- nificant injury resulting from the alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs sufficient to rise to the level of a constitutional wrong. See Miltier v. Beorn,896 F.2d 848
(4th Cir. 1990). We also note that in light of the lack of merit of Appel- lant's complaint, the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in declining to grant default judgment against Appellee Anderson. See Educational Servs., Inc. v. Maryland State Bd. for Higher Educ.,710 F.2d 170
, 177 (4th Cir. 1983). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3