Lineberger v. York

Fourth Circuit

Lineberger v. York

76 F. App'x 497

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 24, 2003

Docket03-6771

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 76 F. App'x 497 (Lineberger v. York) 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

Lineberger v. York, 76 F. App'x 497 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Bernard Lineberger appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Lineberger v. York, No. CA-02-210-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2003). 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.

Jeffrey Bernard Lineberger appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Lineberger v. York, No. CA-02-210-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2003). 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)

76 F. App'x 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lineberger-v-york-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack