James v. Williams

Fourth Circuit

James v. Williams

144 F. App'x 353

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 4, 2005·No. No. 05-7082·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Terrance Lamount James 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. See James v. Williams, No. CA-04-69 (W.D.N.C. June 21, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented [354]*354in 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:

Terrance Lamount James 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. See James v. Williams, No. CA-04-69 (W.D.N.C. June 21, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented [354]*354in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

James v. Williams, 144 F. App'x 353 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

144 F. App'x 353 (James v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related