Crawford v. Easley

Fourth Circuit

Crawford v. Easley

280 F. App'x 264

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 5, 2008·No. No. 08-6301·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Everette Crawford and Jarvis Deangelo Broadnax appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 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. Crawford, v. Easley, No. 5:07-ct-03032-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 2008). 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:

Thomas Everette Crawford and Jarvis Deangelo Broadnax appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 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. Crawford, v. Easley, No. 5:07-ct-03032-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 2008). 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.

Crawford v. Easley, 280 F. App'x 264 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

280 F. App'x 264 (Crawford v. Easley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related