Proctor v. Norris

Eighth Circuit

Proctor v. Norris

9 F. App'x 555

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 16, 2001

DocketNos. 00-3392, 00-3393

StatusPublished

This text of 9 F. App'x 555 (Proctor v. Norris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Proctor v. Norris, 9 F. App'x 555 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmates Troy Roddy and Reginald R. Early appeal from the district court’s¹ 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Having carefully reviewed the record and appellants’ brief, we agree with the district court that, for the reasons the court explained, the complaint failed to state a claim. See Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (de novo review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmates Troy Roddy and Reginald R. Early appeal from the district court’s¹ 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Having carefully reviewed the record and appellants’ brief, we agree with the district court that, for the reasons the court explained, the complaint failed to state a claim. See Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (de novo review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 F. App'x 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/proctor-v-norris-ca8-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack