Bryson v. Johnston

101 F. App'x 417
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 29, 2004·No. No. 04-6007·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Lester Daniel Bryson and John Frank Bowen appeal the district court’s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and a subsequent order denying their motion to vacate judgment and motion for recusal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bryson v. Johnston, No. CA-03-227-1-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 7, 2003 & entered Nov. 13, 2003; Feb. 17, 2004). We deny Appellants’ motion for appointment of counsel. We further deny Appellants’ motion for 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

Bryson v. Johnston, 101 F. App'x 417 (4th Cir. 2004).

101 F. App'x 417 (Bryson v. Johnston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related