Redden v. McMaster

Fourth Circuit

Redden v. McMaster

313 F. App'x 654

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 26, 2009·No. No. 08-8190·Published

Opinion

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Danny Russell Redden appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Redden v. McMaster, No. 8:08-cv-02845-CMC, 2008 WL 4458877 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008). 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

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Danny Russell Redden appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Redden v. McMaster, No. 8:08-cv-02845-CMC, 2008 WL 4458877 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008). 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.

Redden v. McMaster, 313 F. App'x 654 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

313 F. App'x 654 (Redden v. McMaster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related