Daniels v. Daniels

Fourth Circuit

Daniels v. Daniels

476 F. App'x 752

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 2012

DocketNo. 12-6201

StatusPublished

This text of 476 F. App'x 752 (Daniels v. Daniels) 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

Daniels v. Daniels, 476 F. App'x 752 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Craig Daniels appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Daniels v. Daniels, No. 4:10-cv-01692-TLW-SVH (D.S.C. Dec. 7, 2011). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Craig Daniels appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Daniels v. Daniels, No. 4:10-cv-01692-TLW-SVH (D.S.C. Dec. 7, 2011). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 F. App'x 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-daniels-ca4-2012.