Littek v. Clarke

Fourth Circuit

Littek v. Clarke

669 F. App'x 167

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 12, 2016·No. No. 16-6703·Published

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Anthony Littek appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction, We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Littek v. Clarke, No. 7:16-cv-00072-JLK-PMS, 2016 WL 2689906 (W.D. Va. May 9, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Anthony Littek appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction, We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Littek v. Clarke, No. 7:16-cv-00072-JLK-PMS, 2016 WL 2689906 (W.D. Va. May 9, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Littek v. Clarke, 669 F. App'x 167 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

669 F. App'x 167 (Littek v. Clarke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.