Belk v. Dickerhoff

Fourth Circuit

Belk v. Dickerhoff

274 F. App'x 239

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 2008

DocketNo. 07-7363

StatusPublished

This text of 274 F. App'x 239 (Belk v. Dickerhoff) 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

Belk v. Dickerhoff, 274 F. App'x 239 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie M. Belk appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Belk v. Dickerhoff, No. 5:06-ct-03071-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2006; Aug. 14, 2007). We grant Belk’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 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

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie M. Belk appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Belk v. Dickerhoff, No. 5:06-ct-03071-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2006; Aug. 14, 2007). We grant Belk’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 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)

274 F. App'x 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belk-v-dickerhoff-ca4-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack