The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
23-7105•Kenneth Lee Nickoson v. Rachael Baumgardner, Rn; Alan Barnett, Md; Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
23-7105Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 15, 2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7105
KENNETH LEE NICKOSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RACHAEL BAUMGARDNER, RN; ALAN BARNETT, MD; WEXFORD
HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
GEORGE TRENT, Warden; KEVIN HALLORAN, Chairman of the Board,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00087-GMG)
Submitted: January 17, 2024 Decided: February 14, 2025
Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Kenneth Lee Nickoson, Appellant Pro Se. Jordan K. Herrick, James William Marshall, III,
BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Lee Nickoson appeals the district court’s order accepting in part the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Nickoson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint, in which Nickoson alleged that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Although the district court
erred in its standard of review of Nickoson’s objections, Nickoson failed to object, so he
forfeited any challenge on this point. We find that the magistrate judge failed to apply de
novo review of Nickoson’s motion to dismiss, but having reviewed the record, we do not
find reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Nickoson’s motion to appoint counsel, and we
affirm the district court’s order. Nickoson v. Trent, No. 3:22-cv-00087-GMG (N.D. W. Va.
Sept. 21, 2023). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.