Lurz v. Galley

Fourth Circuit

Lurz v. Galley

296 F. App'x 364

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lurz v. Galley. Read the opinion of the Court — 436 F. App'x 143 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 9, 2008·No. No. 08-6567·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jay Timothy Lurz 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 deny his motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. [365]*365See Lurz v. Galley, No. l:07-cv-00070AMD (D.Md. Mar. 10, 2008). 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:

Jay Timothy Lurz 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 deny his motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. [365]*365See Lurz v. Galley, No. l:07-cv-00070AMD (D.Md. Mar. 10, 2008). 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.

Lurz v. Galley, 296 F. App'x 364 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

296 F. App'x 364 (Lurz v. Galley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related