Opinion of the Court — Curtis v. Curtis

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: May 6, 2002
Case: Curtis v. Curtis
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

ORDER Ronnie Lee Curtis, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). Seeking monetary relief, Curtis sued a former Deputy Ohio Jailer (Sherry Curtis), a former Ohio County Jailer (Darrell Curtis), and a Henderson County Jailer (Miles Hart), in both their individual and official capacities. Curtis claims that: 1) the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they denied him medical treatment for his skin condition; 2) defendant Hart denied Curtis personal hygiene items; and 3) defendant Hart denied Curtis access to his attorney. Upon initial review, the district court dismissed Curtis’s third claim as frivolous, but permitted the case to proceed on Curtis’s remaining claims. Thereafter, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Curtis’s claim that they had denied him medical treatment because the record established that he had received…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.