Fishback v. Maryland

Fourth Circuit

Fishback v. Maryland

486 F. App'x 387

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 5, 2012·No. No. 12-6666·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John William Fishback appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Fishback v. Maryland, No. 1:12-cv-00927-JFM, 2012 WL 1145034 (D.Md. Apr. 4, 2012). We deny Fishback’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

John William Fishback appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Fishback v. Maryland, No. 1:12-cv-00927-JFM, 2012 WL 1145034 (D.Md. Apr. 4, 2012). We deny Fishback’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

Fishback v. Maryland, 486 F. App'x 387 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

486 F. App'x 387 (Fishback v. Maryland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related