McFadden v. Bittinger

Fourth Circuit

McFadden v. Bittinger

699 F. App'x 206

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 20, 2017·No. No. 17-6772·Published

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bernard McFadden appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McFadden v. Bittinger, No. 2:15-cv-02507-JMC, 2017 WL 1044845 (D.S.C. Mar. 20, 2017 & May 30, 2017). 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bernard McFadden appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McFadden v. Bittinger, No. 2:15-cv-02507-JMC, 2017 WL 1044845 (D.S.C. Mar. 20, 2017 & May 30, 2017). 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

McFadden v. Bittinger, 699 F. App'x 206 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

699 F. App'x 206 (McFadden v. Bittinger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related