Green v. South Carolina

Fourth Circuit

Green v. South Carolina

393 F. App'x 106

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 30, 2010·No. No. 10-6627·Published

Opinion

[107]*107Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Harold Green appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Green v. South Carolina, No. 6:10-cv-00396-TLW, 2010 WL 1346412 (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2010). 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

[107]*107Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Harold Green appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Green v. South Carolina, No. 6:10-cv-00396-TLW, 2010 WL 1346412 (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2010). 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.

Green v. South Carolina, 393 F. App'x 106 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

393 F. App'x 106 (Green v. South Carolina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related