Bartlett v. Robeson

Fourth Circuit

Bartlett v. Robeson

489 F. App'x 743

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 27, 2012·No. No. 12-7156·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Bartlett appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 [744] U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and his numerous motions for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bartlett v. Robeson, No. 5:11-ct-03008-BO, 2012 WL 2237003 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 21 & June 15, 2012). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Ricky Bartlett appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 [744] U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and his numerous motions for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bartlett v. Robeson, No. 5:11-ct-03008-BO, 2012 WL 2237003 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 21 & June 15, 2012). 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.

Bartlett v. Robeson, 489 F. App'x 743 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

489 F. App'x 743 (Bartlett v. Robeson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related