Cassell v. Jagust

Fourth Circuit

Cassell v. Jagust

311 F. App'x 664

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 18, 2009

DocketNo. 08-7602

StatusPublished

This text of 311 F. App'x 664 (Cassell v. Jagust) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cassell v. Jagust, 311 F. App'x 664 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles M. Cassell, III, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cassell v. Jagust, No. 5:06-ct-03025-BO, 2008 WL 3068632 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 5, 2008). We deny the motions for appointment of counsel, to show cause and compel officials to supply materials, for injunctive relief, for [665]*665reconsideration, and for access to this and other courts. The motion “in the forma pauperis” is denied as moot. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles M. Cassell, III, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cassell v. Jagust, No. 5:06-ct-03025-BO, 2008 WL 3068632 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 5, 2008). We deny the motions for appointment of counsel, to show cause and compel officials to supply materials, for injunctive relief, for [665]*665reconsideration, and for access to this and other courts. The motion “in the forma pauperis” is denied as moot. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

311 F. App'x 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassell-v-jagust-ca4-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack