Pugh v. Ingram

Fourth Circuit

Pugh v. Ingram

500 F. App'x 218

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 18, 2012·No. No. 12-7174·Published

Opinion

[219] Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

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

[219] Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

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.

Pugh v. Ingram, 500 F. App'x 218 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

500 F. App'x 218 (Pugh v. Ingram) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related