Fortson v. Gonzales

Fourth Circuit

Fortson v. Gonzales

516 F. App'x 269

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 2013

DocketNo. 12-2372

StatusPublished

This text of 516 F. App'x 269 (Fortson v. Gonzales) 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

Fortson v. Gonzales, 516 F. App'x 269 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Major Fortson appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Fortson’s motion for judgment and to dismiss his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fortson v. Gonzales, No. 8:12-cv-00404-TMC, 2012 WL 5239170 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Major Fortson appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Fortson’s motion for judgment and to dismiss his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fortson v. Gonzales, No. 8:12-cv-00404-TMC, 2012 WL 5239170 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 F. App'x 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fortson-v-gonzales-ca4-2013.