Parsons v. Lee

Fourth Circuit

Parsons v. Lee

111 F. App'x 678

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 20, 2004·No. No. 04-6845·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Hobart Parsons appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Parsons v. Lee, No. CA-04-73-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2004). 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 Hobart Parsons appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Parsons v. Lee, No. CA-04-73-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2004). 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

Parsons v. Lee, 111 F. App'x 678 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

111 F. App'x 678 (Parsons v. Lee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related