Groves v. Darlington

Fourth Circuit

Groves v. Darlington

457 F. App'x 230

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 2011

DocketNo. 11-1298

StatusPublished

This text of 457 F. App'x 230 (Groves v. Darlington) 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

Groves v. Darlington, 457 F. App'x 230 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

The Appellants, Nathan Andrew Groves and Joel Flake Stroud, appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of the Appel-lee and rendering the Appellee’s pending motions moot, and the magistrate judge’s order denying the Appellants’ motion to transfer the case to another division of the district court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s and magistrate judge’s orders. We also deny the Appellants’ motion to expedite the decision as moot. 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

The Appellants, Nathan Andrew Groves and Joel Flake Stroud, appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of the Appel-lee and rendering the Appellee’s pending motions moot, and the magistrate judge’s order denying the Appellants’ motion to transfer the case to another division of the district court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s and magistrate judge’s orders. We also deny the Appellants’ motion to expedite the decision as moot. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 F. App'x 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groves-v-darlington-ca4-2011.