Odom v. Ryan

Fourth Circuit

Odom v. Ryan

389 F. App'x 303

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 29, 2010·No. No. 10-1266·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher A. Odom 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. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Odom v. Ryan, No. 3:09-cv-03271-PMD, 2010 WL 427741 (D.S.C. Feb. 4, 2010). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Christopher A. Odom 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. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Odom v. Ryan, No. 3:09-cv-03271-PMD, 2010 WL 427741 (D.S.C. Feb. 4, 2010). 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.

Odom v. Ryan, 389 F. App'x 303 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

389 F. App'x 303 (Odom v. Ryan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related