Reed v. Dotson

Fourth Circuit

Reed v. Dotson

409 F. App'x 663

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 26, 2011·No. No. 10-7099·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles W. Reed, III, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to enforce a settlement agreement, in which he alleged that the Defendants breached the settlement agreement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Reed’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reed v. Dotson, No. 1:05-cv-01216-CCB (D.Md. July 21, 2010). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles W. Reed, III, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to enforce a settlement agreement, in which he alleged that the Defendants breached the settlement agreement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Reed’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reed v. Dotson, No. 1:05-cv-01216-CCB (D.Md. July 21, 2010). 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.

Reed v. Dotson, 409 F. App'x 663 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

409 F. App'x 663 (Reed v. Dotson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.