McFadden v. Bittinger

699 F. App'x 206
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 20, 2017
DocketNo. 17-6772
StatusPublished

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

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
699 F. App'x 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfadden-v-bittinger-ca4-2017.