Lamb v. Astrue

235 F. App'x 64
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lamb v. Astrue. Read the opinion of the Court — 290 F. App'x 607
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 20, 2007·No. 07-1349·Unpublished

Opinion

*65 PER CURIAM:

Robert Emerson Lamb appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) complaint and dismissing it as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lamb v. Ast rue, No. 4:07-cv-00019-RBS (E.D.Va. April 10, 2007). We deny Lamb’s pro se motion to expedite as moot. 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

Lamb v. Astrue, 235 F. App'x 64 (4th Cir. 2007).

235 F. App'x 64 (Lamb v. Astrue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related