Anderson v. Dillman

Fourth Circuit

Anderson v. Dillman

56 F. App'x 142

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 14, 2003·No. No. 02-7171·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pamela J. Anderson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. Dillman, No. CA-01-768-7 (W.D.Va. July 19, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Pamela J. Anderson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. Dillman, No. CA-01-768-7 (W.D.Va. July 19, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Anderson v. Dillman, 56 F. App'x 142 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

56 F. App'x 142 (Anderson v. Dillman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related