Jack v. Stubblefield

Fourth Circuit

Jack v. Stubblefield

342 F. App'x 902

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 9, 2009·No. No. 09-1758·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Todd M. Jack appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jack v. Stubblefield, No. 5:09-cv-00046-gec, 2009 WL 1809931 (W.D.Va. filed June 22, entered June 23, 2009). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Todd M. Jack appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jack v. Stubblefield, No. 5:09-cv-00046-gec, 2009 WL 1809931 (W.D.Va. filed June 22, entered June 23, 2009). 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.

Jack v. Stubblefield, 342 F. App'x 902 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

342 F. App'x 902 (Jack v. Stubblefield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related