Ham v. Padula
This text of 474 F. App'x 240 (Ham v. Padula) 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.
Opinion
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Angelo B. Ham appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we [241]*241affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ham v. Padula, No. 6:10-cv-03058-JMC, 2012 WL 602817 (D.S.C. Feb. 24, 2012). 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
474 F. App'x 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ham-v-padula-ca4-2012.