Drummond v. Bearden

Fourth Circuit

Drummond v. Bearden

475 F. App'x 924

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 21, 2012·No. No. 12-6778·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Randy Drummond appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint after entry of judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Drummond v. Ozmint, No. 8:10-cv02423-TLW (D.S.C. Apr. 17, 2012; Feb. 17, 2012); 2011 WL 6026305 (Dec. 5, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Randy Drummond appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint after entry of judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Drummond v. Ozmint, No. 8:10-cv02423-TLW (D.S.C. Apr. 17, 2012; Feb. 17, 2012); 2011 WL 6026305 (Dec. 5, 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.

Drummond v. Bearden, 475 F. App'x 924 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

475 F. App'x 924 (Drummond v. Bearden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related