Bishop v. Johnson

Fourth Circuit

Bishop v. Johnson

638 F. App'x 226

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 10, 2016·No. No. 15-7230·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Bishop, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bishop v. Johnson, No. 1:14-cv-02300-JKB, 2015 WL 4377957 (D. Md. filed July 13, 2015 & entered July 14, 2015). We deny his mo[227] tions to appoint counsel and to amend his complaint and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Ronald Bishop, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bishop v. Johnson, No. 1:14-cv-02300-JKB, 2015 WL 4377957 (D. Md. filed July 13, 2015 & entered July 14, 2015). We deny his mo[227] tions to appoint counsel and to amend his complaint and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Bishop v. Johnson, 638 F. App'x 226 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

638 F. App'x 226 (Bishop v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related