Hockney v. PCS Phosphate Corp.

Third Circuit

Hockney v. PCS Phosphate Corp.

353 F. App'x 788

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 2009

DocketNo. 09-1624

StatusPublished

This text of 353 F. App'x 788 (Hockney v. PCS Phosphate Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hockney v. PCS Phosphate Corp., 353 F. App'x 788 (3d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Glenn I. Hockney appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Hockney’s civil action for failure 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. Hockney v. PCS Phos[789]*789phate Corp., No. 4:08-cv-00210-BR (E.D.N.C. May 21, 2009). We deny Hockney’s motion to provide relief and prevent serious wrong and motions to expedite. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Glenn I. Hockney appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Hockney’s civil action for failure 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. Hockney v. PCS Phos[789]*789phate Corp., No. 4:08-cv-00210-BR (E.D.N.C. May 21, 2009). We deny Hockney’s motion to provide relief and prevent serious wrong and motions to expedite. 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)

353 F. App'x 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hockney-v-pcs-phosphate-corp-ca3-2009.