Dawkins v. Triplett

Fourth Circuit

Dawkins v. Triplett

63 F. App'x 753

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 28, 2003·No. No. 02-7919·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

James Edward Dawkins appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reimbursement of costs. We have independently reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dawkins v. Triplett, No. CA-97-171 (W.D.N.C. filed Oct. 31, 2002; entered Nov. 1, 2002). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

James Edward Dawkins appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reimbursement of costs. We have independently reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dawkins v. Triplett, No. CA-97-171 (W.D.N.C. filed Oct. 31, 2002; entered Nov. 1, 2002). 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.

Dawkins v. Triplett, 63 F. App'x 753 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

63 F. App'x 753 (Dawkins v. Triplett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.