Griffin v. Fucillo

Fourth Circuit

Griffin v. Fucillo

522 F. App'x 204

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 2013

DocketNo. 12-2576

StatusPublished

This text of 522 F. App'x 204 (Griffin v. Fucillo) 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

Griffin v. Fucillo, 522 F. App'x 204 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Norma Brown Griffin, UNDER SEAL, and UNDER SEAL appeal the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Griffin’s motion for injunctive relief for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Griffin v. Fucillo, No. 5:12-cv-04223 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 20, 2012; Nov. 28, 2012). We deny the Appellees’ motion to dismiss and 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Norma Brown Griffin, UNDER SEAL, and UNDER SEAL appeal the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Griffin’s motion for injunctive relief for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Griffin v. Fucillo, No. 5:12-cv-04223 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 20, 2012; Nov. 28, 2012). We deny the Appellees’ motion to dismiss and 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)

522 F. App'x 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-fucillo-ca4-2013.