Harris v. Knuckles

Fourth Circuit

Harris v. Knuckles

454 F. App'x 224

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 2011

DocketNo. 11-7151

StatusPublished

This text of 454 F. App'x 224 (Harris v. Knuckles) 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

Harris v. Knuckles, 454 F. App'x 224 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Ray Harris appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. Knuckles, No. 5:10-ct-03206-D, 2011 WL 2976779 (E.D.N.C. July 22, 2011). We deny Harris’ pending motions and 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

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Ray Harris appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. Knuckles, No. 5:10-ct-03206-D, 2011 WL 2976779 (E.D.N.C. July 22, 2011). We deny Harris’ pending motions and 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)

454 F. App'x 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-knuckles-ca4-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack