Lamb v. Astrue

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Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 25, 2008·No. 08-1725·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1725

ROBERT EMERSON LAMB,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (4:07-cv-000082-RBS-TEM)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Emerson Lamb, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Robert Emerson Lamb appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and

dismissing it for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2000) because it was not filed in a timely

manner. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Lamb v. Astrue, No. 4:07-cv-00082-RBS (E.D. Va. June 19,

2008). We deny his 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, (4th Cir. 2008).

Lamb v. Astrue (Lamb v. Astrue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Proceedings in forma pauperis
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)