Burks v. Pate

Fourth Circuit

Burks v. Pate

178 F. App'x 231

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Burks v. Pate. Read the opinion of the Court — 119 F. App'x 447 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 28, 2006·No. No. 05-7321·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Troy Luke Burks appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we [232]*232affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Burks v. Pate, No. CA-02-4014-3 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 8, 2005 & entered Aug. 9, 2005). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Troy Luke Burks appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we [232]*232affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Burks v. Pate, No. CA-02-4014-3 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 8, 2005 & entered Aug. 9, 2005). 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.

Burks v. Pate, 178 F. App'x 231 (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

178 F. App'x 231 (Burks v. Pate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related