McElhiney v. Keller

Fourth Circuit

McElhiney v. Keller

568 F. App'x 249

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 2014

DocketNo. 13-8018

StatusPublished

This text of 568 F. App'x 249 (McElhiney v. Keller) 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

McElhiney v. Keller, 568 F. App'x 249 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Bertram Norman McElhiney, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying [250]*250relief 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. McElhiney v. Keller; No. 1:12-cv-00037-R JC, 2013 WL 6237983 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 2013). 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:

Bertram Norman McElhiney, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying [250]*250relief 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. McElhiney v. Keller; No. 1:12-cv-00037-R JC, 2013 WL 6237983 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 2013). 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)

568 F. App'x 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcelhiney-v-keller-ca4-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack