Clenney v. Swartz

Fourth Circuit

Clenney v. Swartz

620 F. App'x 206

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 22, 2015·No. No. 15-1535·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David T. Clenney appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clenney v. Swartz, No. 1:14-cv-01702-GBL-MSN (E.D.Va. Apr. 24, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

David T. Clenney appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clenney v. Swartz, No. 1:14-cv-01702-GBL-MSN (E.D.Va. Apr. 24, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Clenney v. Swartz, 620 F. App'x 206 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

620 F. App'x 206 (Clenney v. Swartz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related