Nelson v. Hamilton

Fourth Circuit

Nelson v. Hamilton

87 F. App'x 897

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 20, 2004·No. 03-7502·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Donnell Nelson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nelson v. Hamilton, No. CA-02-605-2 (E.D.Va. Sept. 12, 2003). 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

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Donnell Nelson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nelson v. Hamilton, No. CA-02-605-2 (E.D.Va. Sept. 12, 2003). 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

Nelson v. Hamilton, 87 F. App'x 897 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

87 F. App'x 897 (Nelson v. Hamilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related