Watson v. Taddock ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DAVID WATSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 99-6949
LIEUTENANT TADDOCK; CAPTAIN
BRINSON; BETTY ZIMMERMAN, Nurse,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CA-99-252-5-F)
Submitted: November 16, 1999
Decided: February 28, 2000
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
David Watson, Appellant Pro Se.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
David Watson appeals the district court's order denying relief on
his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.
1999). In his complaint, Watson claimed that prison officials denied
him access to the courts and provided inadequate medical care for
several conditions, including headaches, chest pain, numbness in his
leg, blood in his stool, depression, and toothaches. We have reviewed
the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, as to the claims Watson raised in his complaint, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Watson v. Taddock,
No. CA-99-252-5-F (E.D.N.C. July 7, 1999).
In his informal brief on appeal, Watson claims that prison officials
at Wayne County Detention Center violated his rights by allowing
him to be exposed to tuberculosis, which was diagnosed on his admis-
sion to Central Prison. He claims he now must undergo a six-month
course of medication for tuberculosis. It is unclear whether he has
dormant or active tuberculosis. See DeGidio v. Pung, 920 F.2d 525,
527 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting that few people with dormant tuberculosis
develop the active disease). This claim was not presented to the dis-
trict court and is, accordingly, not properly before this court for
review. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
Therefore, we dismiss the appeal in part without prejudice to Wat-
son's right to file a § 1983 action raising this claim.
We deny Watson's motion for discovery. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
2