Reeder v. Staunton

Fourth Circuit

Reeder v. Staunton

463 F. App'x 187

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 2, 2012·No. No. 11-6883·Published

Opinion

[188]*188Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stanley L. Reeder, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reeder v. Staunton, No. 7:11-cv-00299-GEC, 2011 WL 2605047 (W.D.Va. June, 30, 2011). 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

[188]*188Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stanley L. Reeder, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reeder v. Staunton, No. 7:11-cv-00299-GEC, 2011 WL 2605047 (W.D.Va. June, 30, 2011). 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.

Reeder v. Staunton, 463 F. App'x 187 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

463 F. App'x 187 (Reeder v. Staunton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related