Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
James T. Ross, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Arnold Hopkins, Commissioner of Corrections, Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 840 F.2d 11Unpublished Disposition
Submitted Dec. 24, 1987.Decided Feb. 17, 1988
James T. Ross, appellant pro se.
Before JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James T. Ross appeals from the district court's dismissal of his complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We affirm.
Ross sued the Maryland Commissioner of Corrections, alleging that he had developed problems with his feet from wearing prison work boots and that he had received inadequate treatment from the prison medical personnel. Ross failed to show any direct or indirect involvement on the part of his named defendant, as is necessary to assert a claim under Sec. 1983. Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926 (4th Cir.1977). Following Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1152-53 (4th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 970 (1978), the district court gave Ross thirty days in which to amend his complaint and name the correct defendants. Ross made no amendment.
The district court then dismissed the complaint. Finding no error in the dismissal, we dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively and affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.