Ham v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

Fourth Circuit

Ham v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

590 F. App'x 272

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 2015

DocketNo. 14-1779

StatusPublished

This text of 590 F. App'x 272 (Ham v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services) 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

Ham v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services, 590 F. App'x 272 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Doyle R. Ham, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ham v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., No. 1:13-cv-03501-JKB (D.Md. filed July 10, 2014 & entered July 11, 2014). We also deny Ham’s motion for injunctive relief. We 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Doyle R. Ham, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ham v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., No. 1:13-cv-03501-JKB (D.Md. filed July 10, 2014 & entered July 11, 2014). We also deny Ham’s motion for injunctive relief. We 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)

590 F. App'x 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ham-v-department-of-public-safety-correctional-services-ca4-2015.