Lacey v. Braxton

Fourth Circuit

Lacey v. Braxton

463 F. App'x 222

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 3, 2012·No. No. 11-7173·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daughton W. Lacey, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 [223]*223U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See Ciena Corp. v. Jarrard, 203 F.3d 312, 322 (4th Cir.2000) (providing review standard). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lacey v. Braxton, No. 7:10-cv-00139-JLK, 2011 WL 3320801 (W.D.Va. Aug. 1, 2011). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Daughton W. Lacey, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 [223]*223U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See Ciena Corp. v. Jarrard, 203 F.3d 312, 322 (4th Cir.2000) (providing review standard). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lacey v. Braxton, No. 7:10-cv-00139-JLK, 2011 WL 3320801 (W.D.Va. Aug. 1, 2011). 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.

Lacey v. Braxton, 463 F. App'x 222 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

463 F. App'x 222 (Lacey v. Braxton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related