Mayes v. Rowley

Fourth Circuit

Mayes v. Rowley

453 F. App'x 358

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 17, 2011·No. No. 11-6840·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Norman Lindsey Mayes appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We agree with the district court that Mayes was afforded sufficient due process. Mayes v. Rowley, No. 1:10-cv-01308-CCB, 2011 WL 1808796 (D. Md. May 12, 2011); (June 1, 2011). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Norman Lindsey Mayes appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We agree with the district court that Mayes was afforded sufficient due process. Mayes v. Rowley, No. 1:10-cv-01308-CCB, 2011 WL 1808796 (D. Md. May 12, 2011); (June 1, 2011). 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.

Mayes v. Rowley, 453 F. App'x 358 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

453 F. App'x 358 (Mayes v. Rowley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related