McKeown v. McMaster

Fourth Circuit

McKeown v. McMaster

428 F. App'x 228

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 3, 2011

DocketNo. 10-7639

StatusPublished

This text of 428 F. App'x 228 (McKeown v. McMaster) 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

McKeown v. McMaster, 428 F. App'x 228 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony McKeown appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and its subsequent orders denying his motion to alter or amend filed pursuant to 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. McKeown v. Ratigan, No. l:09-cv-00655JMC, 2010 WL 3521849 (D.S.C. Sept. 2, 2010). We deny McKeown’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Michael Anthony McKeown appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and its subsequent orders denying his motion to alter or amend filed pursuant to 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. McKeown v. Ratigan, No. l:09-cv-00655JMC, 2010 WL 3521849 (D.S.C. Sept. 2, 2010). We deny McKeown’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

428 F. App'x 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckeown-v-mcmaster-ca4-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack