Richardson v. Bennett

Fourth Circuit

Richardson v. Bennett

110 F. App'x 317

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 24, 2004·No. No. 04-7210·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Tommy Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Richardson v. Bennett, No. CA-04-211-5-BO (E.D.N.C. June 21, 2004). 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

PER CURIAM:

Tommy Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Richardson v. Bennett, No. CA-04-211-5-BO (E.D.N.C. June 21, 2004). 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

Richardson v. Bennett, 110 F. App'x 317 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

110 F. App'x 317 (Richardson v. Bennett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related