Eugene Dyson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., No. 20-6469 (4th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6469 EUGENE DYSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; CRYSTAL JAMISON, P.A.; RICHARD MILLER; DENISE GILSINGER, Former Acting Warden; DR. MONICA STALLWORTH-KOLIMAS; DR. MAHBOOBEH MEMARSADEGHI; DR. DIDDEN; DR. LAWRENCE MANNING; DR. BEN OTEYZA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:19-cv-00307-TDC) Submitted: September 23, 2021 Decided: November 17, 2021 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Dyson, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Conrad Meister, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland; Patricia H. Beall, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eugene Dyson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Dyson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We grant Dyson’s motion for leave to file his supplemental brief and grant the Medical Defendants’ motion to strike Dyson’s “Updated Affidavit.” * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dyson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., No. 8:19-cv-00307-TDC (D. Md. Mar. 10, 2020). 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 Dyson has also filed a pleading captioned, “Relief from Judgement or Order,” in which he asks this court to “permit disclosure of the State employed witnesses’ testimony on the facts of the case.” To the extent that this pleading was intended as a motion to permit new evidence, the motion is denied. * 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.