McKinnedy v. Kee-Lippe

Fourth Circuit

McKinnedy v. Kee-Lippe

479 F. App'x 523

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 2, 2012·No. No. 12-6950·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Clayton McKinnedy, III, appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2006) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McKinnedy v. Kee-Lippe, No. 6:10-cv-02298-HMH, 2012 WL 847806 (D.S.C. Mar 13, 2012 & Apr. 16, 2012). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

William Clayton McKinnedy, III, appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2006) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McKinnedy v. Kee-Lippe, No. 6:10-cv-02298-HMH, 2012 WL 847806 (D.S.C. Mar 13, 2012 & Apr. 16, 2012). 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.

McKinnedy v. Kee-Lippe, 479 F. App'x 523 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

479 F. App'x 523 (McKinnedy v. Kee-Lippe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related