McKinney v. Doherty

Fourth Circuit

McKinney v. Doherty

23 F. App'x 190

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 15, 2002·No. 01-7686·Unpublished·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William Clayton McKinney appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McKinney v. Doherty, No. CA-00-3971-6-20AK (D.S.C. Sept. 4, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be *191 fore 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

PER CURIAM.

William Clayton McKinney appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McKinney v. Doherty, No. CA-00-3971-6-20AK (D.S.C. Sept. 4, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be *191 fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

McKinney v. Doherty, 23 F. App'x 190 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

23 F. App'x 190 (McKinney v. Doherty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related