McKinnon v. Pendergraph

Fourth Circuit

McKinnon v. Pendergraph

75 F. App'x 163

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 15, 2003·No. No. 03-6186·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Willie McKinnon appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee Telisa Hunter’s motion to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McKinnon v. Pendergraph, No. CA-00-620-3 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court [164] 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.

Willie McKinnon appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee Telisa Hunter’s motion to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McKinnon v. Pendergraph, No. CA-00-620-3 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court [164] and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

McKinnon v. Pendergraph, 75 F. App'x 163 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

75 F. App'x 163 (McKinnon v. Pendergraph) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related