Atkins v. Schwartz

Fourth Circuit

Atkins v. Schwartz

468 F. App'x 322

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 28, 2012·No. No. 11-7501·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Atkins appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Atkins’ motion for a transcript at Government expense and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Atkins v. Schwartz, No. 7:11-cv-00493-GEC-RSB (W.D.Va. Oct. 31, 2011). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Atkins appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Atkins’ motion for a transcript at Government expense and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Atkins v. Schwartz, No. 7:11-cv-00493-GEC-RSB (W.D.Va. Oct. 31, 2011). 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.

Atkins v. Schwartz, 468 F. App'x 322 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

468 F. App'x 322 (Atkins v. Schwartz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related