Canada v. Ray

Fourth Circuit

Canada v. Ray

437 F. App'x 263

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 6, 2011·No. No. 11-6239·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin A. Canada appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Canada v. Ray, No. 7:08-cv-00219, 2011 WL 565611 (W.D.Va. Feb. 9, 2011). We deny Canada’s motions to appoint counsel, to amend the record, and for injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because [264]*264the 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin A. Canada appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Canada v. Ray, No. 7:08-cv-00219, 2011 WL 565611 (W.D.Va. Feb. 9, 2011). We deny Canada’s motions to appoint counsel, to amend the record, and for injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because [264]*264the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Canada v. Ray, 437 F. App'x 263 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

437 F. App'x 263 (Canada v. Ray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related