Hinton v. Gilchrist

Fourth Circuit

Hinton v. Gilchrist

51 F. App'x 426

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 2, 2002·No. No. 00-7161·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hinton v. Gilchrist, No. CA-00-246-3-3-MU (E.D.N.C. July 7, 2000). Loren Henderson’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for the appointment of counsel at the Government’s expense are denied 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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hinton v. Gilchrist, No. CA-00-246-3-3-MU (E.D.N.C. July 7, 2000). Loren Henderson’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for the appointment of counsel at the Government’s expense are denied 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.

Hinton v. Gilchrist, 51 F. App'x 426 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

51 F. App'x 426 (Hinton v. Gilchrist) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related