Copes v. Dr. Clem
This text of 539 F. App'x 168 (Copes v. Dr. Clem) 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.
Opinion
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Randolph Copes 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. Copes v. Clem, No. 1:12-cv-00441-JFM, 2013 WL 1010362 (D.Md. Mar. 13, 2013). We deny Copes’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
539 F. App'x 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/copes-v-dr-clem-ca4-2013.