Lewis v. Ugly Duckling Car Sales

Fourth Circuit

Lewis v. Ugly Duckling Car Sales

62 F. App'x 537

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 2003

DocketNo. 03-1062

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 F. App'x 537 (Lewis v. Ugly Duckling Car Sales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis v. Ugly Duckling Car Sales, 62 F. App'x 537 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William M. Lewis, Jr., 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 Lewis v. Ugly Duckling Car Sales, No. CA-02-741-3 (E.D.Va. Dec. 12, 2002). 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.

William M. Lewis, Jr., 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 Lewis v. Ugly Duckling Car Sales, No. CA-02-741-3 (E.D.Va. Dec. 12, 2002). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 F. App'x 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-ugly-duckling-car-sales-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack