Antonio v. Moore

Fourth Circuit

Antonio v. Moore

98 F. App'x 249

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Antonio v. Moore. Read the opinion of the Court — 174 F. App'x 131 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 2, 2004·No. 04-6226·Unpublished

Opinion

*250 PER CURIAM:

Gabriel A. Antonio appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. * See Antonio v. Moore, No. CA-04-33-AM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 20, 2004; entered Jan. 21, 2004). 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

*

We note, as did the district court, that Antonio may pursue his grievances under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) after exhausting his state court remedies.

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

*250 PER CURIAM:

Gabriel A. Antonio appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. * See Antonio v. Moore, No. CA-04-33-AM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 20, 2004; entered Jan. 21, 2004). 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

*

We note, as did the district court, that Antonio may pursue his grievances under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) after exhausting his state court remedies.

Antonio v. Moore, 98 F. App'x 249 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

98 F. App'x 249 (Antonio v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related