Garland v. Catoe

Fourth Circuit

Garland v. Catoe

31 F. App'x 278

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Garland v. Catoe. Read the opinion of the Court — 12 F. App'x 102 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 28, 2002·No. No. 01-8006·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ahmad Clarence Garland appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Garland v. Catoe, No. CA-00-3024-4-19BF (D.S.C. Nov. 7, 2001). 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.

Ahmad Clarence Garland appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Garland v. Catoe, No. CA-00-3024-4-19BF (D.S.C. Nov. 7, 2001). 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.

Garland v. Catoe, 31 F. App'x 278 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

31 F. App'x 278 (Garland v. Catoe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related