Armstrong v. Osteen

Fourth Circuit

Armstrong v. Osteen

3 F. App'x 106

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 13, 2001

Docket00-2519

StatusUnpublished

This text of 3 F. App'x 106 (Armstrong v. Osteen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. Osteen, 3 F. App'x 106 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

*107 PER CURIAM.

Arthur 0. Armstrong appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to file a complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Armstrong v. Osteen, No. MISC-00-108-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 20, 2000). 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

*107 PER CURIAM.

Arthur 0. Armstrong appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to file a complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Armstrong v. Osteen, No. MISC-00-108-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 20, 2000). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 F. App'x 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-osteen-ca4-2001.