Malik v. Sligh

Fourth Circuit

Malik v. Sligh

507 F. App'x 294

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 24, 2013·No. No. 12-7576·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Habeeb Abdul Malik appeals the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Malik v. Sligh, No. 5:11-cv-01064-RBH, 2012 WL 3834850 (D.S.C. Sept. 4, 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Habeeb Abdul Malik appeals the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Malik v. Sligh, No. 5:11-cv-01064-RBH, 2012 WL 3834850 (D.S.C. Sept. 4, 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.

Malik v. Sligh, 507 F. App'x 294 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

507 F. App'x 294 (Malik v. Sligh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related