Kelly v. Bishop

Fourth Circuit

Kelly v. Bishop

678 F. App'x 96

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 24, 2017·No. No. 16-7399·Published

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Quentin Kelly appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kelly v. Bishop, No. 1:15-cv-03795-RDB (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2016). We deny Kelly’s motions to participate in oral argument, to reconsider, and to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be[97] fore 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Anthony Quentin Kelly appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kelly v. Bishop, No. 1:15-cv-03795-RDB (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2016). We deny Kelly’s motions to participate in oral argument, to reconsider, and to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be[97] fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process,

AFFIRMED

Kelly v. Bishop, 678 F. App'x 96 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

678 F. App'x 96 (Kelly v. Bishop) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related