Clark v. Neasman

Fourth Circuit

Clark v. Neasman

196 F. App'x 226

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 30, 2006·No. No. 06-6528·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jervon R. Clark 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 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Clark v. Neasman, No. 3:04-cv-02459-RBH (D.S.C. filed March 9, 2006; entered March 10, 2006). 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:

Jervon R. Clark 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 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Clark v. Neasman, No. 3:04-cv-02459-RBH (D.S.C. filed March 9, 2006; entered March 10, 2006). 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

Clark v. Neasman, 196 F. App'x 226 (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

196 F. App'x 226 (Clark v. Neasman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related