Mahjor v. Peterson

Fourth Circuit

Mahjor v. Peterson

511 F. App'x 270

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 2013

DocketNo. 13-1043

StatusPublished

This text of 511 F. App'x 270 (Mahjor v. Peterson) 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

Mahjor v. Peterson, 511 F. App'x 270 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Hamid R. Mahjor appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his civil complaint against Deputy Commonwealth Attorney James D. Peterson. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mahjor v. Peterson, No. l:12-cv-01461-LMB-JFA (E.D.Va. Dec. 27, 2012). 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

PER CURIAM:

Hamid R. Mahjor appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his civil complaint against Deputy Commonwealth Attorney James D. Peterson. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mahjor v. Peterson, No. l:12-cv-01461-LMB-JFA (E.D.Va. Dec. 27, 2012). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

511 F. App'x 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahjor-v-peterson-ca4-2013.