Frost v. Illes

Fourth Circuit

Frost v. Illes

144 F. App'x 362

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 5, 2005·No. No. 05-6268, 05-6643·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Robert Frost, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 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 Frost v. Illes, Nos. CA-04-943-8-17BI; CA-04-943-8-JFA (D.S.C. filed Feb. 7, 2005 & entered Feb. 8, 2005; Mar. 23, 2005). We deny Frost’s motion for relief from judgment and 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:

In these consolidated appeals, Robert Frost, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 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 Frost v. Illes, Nos. CA-04-943-8-17BI; CA-04-943-8-JFA (D.S.C. filed Feb. 7, 2005 & entered Feb. 8, 2005; Mar. 23, 2005). We deny Frost’s motion for relief from judgment and 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

Frost v. Illes, 144 F. App'x 362 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

144 F. App'x 362 (Frost v. Illes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related