Hood v. Beck

Fourth Circuit

Hood v. Beck

108 F. App'x 785

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 3, 2004·No. No. 04-6935·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Lee Hood appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hood v. Beck, No. CA-04-312-5-BO (E.D.N.C. May 17, 2004). 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.

Robert Lee Hood appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hood v. Beck, No. CA-04-312-5-BO (E.D.N.C. May 17, 2004). 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

Hood v. Beck, 108 F. App'x 785 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

108 F. App'x 785 (Hood v. Beck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related