McFadden v. Major

Fourth Circuit

McFadden v. Major

397 F. App'x 851

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 6, 2010·No. No. 10-7002·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bernard McFadden appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint with prejudice for lack of prosecution. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McFadden v. Major, No. 6:09-cv-02437-RBH, 2010 WL 2721905 (D.S.C. July 9, 2010). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Bernard McFadden appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint with prejudice for lack of prosecution. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McFadden v. Major, No. 6:09-cv-02437-RBH, 2010 WL 2721905 (D.S.C. July 9, 2010). 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..

McFadden v. Major, 397 F. App'x 851 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

397 F. App'x 851 (McFadden v. Major) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related