Boulware v. Laughrun

Fourth Circuit

Boulware v. Laughrun

41 F. App'x 685

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 25, 2002·No. No. 02-6860·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Alvin Boulware appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2002) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Boulware v. Laughrun, No. CA-02-171-MU (W.D.N.C. filed May 15, 2002; entered Mary 16, 2002). We deny Boulware’s motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary. 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

PER CURIAM.

James Alvin Boulware appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2002) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Boulware v. Laughrun, No. CA-02-171-MU (W.D.N.C. filed May 15, 2002; entered Mary 16, 2002). We deny Boulware’s motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary. 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.

Boulware v. Laughrun, 41 F. App'x 685 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

41 F. App'x 685 (Boulware v. Laughrun) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related