Redditt v. Wade

Fourth Circuit

Redditt v. Wade

178 F. App'x 305

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 4, 2006·No. No. 05-2130·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Louise Redditt appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) against Defendant Patricia Wade for failure to effect service within 120 days from the filing of the complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Redditt v. Wade, No. CA-02-1275-A (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 23, 2005). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Louise Redditt appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) against Defendant Patricia Wade for failure to effect service within 120 days from the filing of the complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Redditt v. Wade, No. CA-02-1275-A (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 23, 2005). 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

Redditt v. Wade, 178 F. App'x 305 (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

178 F. App'x 305 (Redditt v. Wade) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related