Holtzman v. Shearin

Fourth Circuit

Holtzman v. Shearin

261 F. App'x 547

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 24, 2008·No. No. 07-7261·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Todd Neil Holtzman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Holtzman v. Shearin, No. 07-1473-WDQ (D.Md. Aug. 8, 2007). 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:

Todd Neil Holtzman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Holtzman v. Shearin, No. 07-1473-WDQ (D.Md. Aug. 8, 2007). 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.

Holtzman v. Shearin, 261 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

261 F. App'x 547 (Holtzman v. Shearin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related