Lee v. Clark

Fourth Circuit

Lee v. Clark

266 F. App'x 295

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 25, 2008·No. No. 07-1702·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Lee appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lee v. Clark, No. 1:05-cv-00897-WDQ (D. Md. June 26, 2007). 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

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Lee appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lee v. Clark, No. 1:05-cv-00897-WDQ (D. Md. June 26, 2007). 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.

Lee v. Clark, 266 F. App'x 295 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

266 F. App'x 295 (Lee v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related