Corzine v. United States Army

Fourth Circuit

Corzine v. United States Army

518 F. App'x 207

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 2013

DocketNo. 12-8024

StatusPublished

This text of 518 F. App'x 207 (Corzine v. United States Army) 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

Corzine v. United States Army, 518 F. App'x 207 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Corzine appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation in part and denying his motion to appoint counsel and its order dismissing his civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Corzine v. U.S. Army, No. 5:11-cv-461-FL, 2011 WL 6130775 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 2011; Nov. 1, 2012). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Matthew Corzine appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation in part and denying his motion to appoint counsel and its order dismissing his civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Corzine v. U.S. Army, No. 5:11-cv-461-FL, 2011 WL 6130775 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 2011; Nov. 1, 2012). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 F. App'x 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corzine-v-united-states-army-ca4-2013.