Pugh v. Ingram
This text of 500 F. App'x 218 (Pugh v. Ingram) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[219]*219Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Adam Clayton Pugh appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pugh v. Ingram, No. 5:12-ct-03027-FL (E.D.N.C. July 3, 2012). We deny Pugh’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
500 F. App'x 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pugh-v-ingram-ca4-2012.