Dye v. Hatfield

Fourth Circuit

Dye v. Hatfield

122 F. App'x 649

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 4, 2005·No. No. 04-2180·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Rebecca B. Dye and James A. Bailey appeal from 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. See Dye v. Hatfield, No. CA-03-1077-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Aug. 26, 2004; entered Aug. 27, 2004). 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:

Rebecca B. Dye and James A. Bailey appeal from 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. See Dye v. Hatfield, No. CA-03-1077-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Aug. 26, 2004; entered Aug. 27, 2004). 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

Dye v. Hatfield, 122 F. App'x 649 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

122 F. App'x 649 (Dye v. Hatfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related