James v. Cartledge

Fourth Circuit

James v. Cartledge

669 F. App'x 674

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 19, 2016·No. No. 16-6609·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael -D. James appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. James v. Cartledge, No. 9:15-cv-00625-TLW, 2016 WL 1427381 (D.S.C. Apr. 12, 2016). We deny James’ motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael -D. James appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. James v. Cartledge, No. 9:15-cv-00625-TLW, 2016 WL 1427381 (D.S.C. Apr. 12, 2016). We deny James’ motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

James v. Cartledge, 669 F. App'x 674 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

669 F. App'x 674 (James v. Cartledge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related