Howard v. Georgetown County Government Body

Fourth Circuit

Howard v. Georgetown County Government Body

108 F. App'x 109

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 1, 2004·No. No. 04-6521·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Stacy W. Howard appeals the district court’s order, accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Howard’s 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. See Howard v. Georgetown County Gov’t, No. CA-04-36-6-13AK (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 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:

Stacy W. Howard appeals the district court’s order, accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Howard’s 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. See Howard v. Georgetown County Gov’t, No. CA-04-36-6-13AK (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 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

Howard v. Georgetown County Government Body, 108 F. App'x 109 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

108 F. App'x 109 (Howard v. Georgetown County Government Body) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related