Armstrong v. Watson

Fourth Circuit

Armstrong v. Watson

8 F. App'x 276

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 2001

Docket01-1112

StatusUnpublished

This text of 8 F. App'x 276 (Armstrong v. Watson) 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. Watson, 8 F. App'x 276 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

*277 PER CURIAM.

Arthur O. Armstrong appeals the district court’s order denying post-judgment motions. We have reviewed the record and the district court order and find the action frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Armstrong v. Watson, No. CA-97-1335-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Dec. 13, 2000; entered Dec. 14, 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

*277 PER CURIAM.

Arthur O. Armstrong appeals the district court’s order denying post-judgment motions. We have reviewed the record and the district court order and find the action frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Armstrong v. Watson, No. CA-97-1335-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Dec. 13, 2000; entered Dec. 14, 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)

8 F. App'x 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-watson-ca4-2001.