Lance v. Cagle

Fourth Circuit

Lance v. Cagle

250 F. App'x 594

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 15, 2007·No. No. 07-1503·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jesse R. Lance appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lance v. Cagle, No. 2:07-cv-00726-SB, 2007 WL 1219667 (D.S.C. filed Apr. 23, 2007 & entered Apr. 24, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before [595]*595the 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:

Jesse R. Lance appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lance v. Cagle, No. 2:07-cv-00726-SB, 2007 WL 1219667 (D.S.C. filed Apr. 23, 2007 & entered Apr. 24, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before [595]*595the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Lance v. Cagle, 250 F. App'x 594 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

250 F. App'x 594 (Lance v. Cagle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related