Richardson v. Gray

Fourth Circuit

Richardson v. Gray

433 F. App'x 176

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 2, 2011·No. No. 10-2374·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mike Anthony Richardson 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. Richardson v. Captain Gray, No. 4:08-cv-03539-RBH, 2010 WL 4809429 (D.S.C. Nov. 19, 2010). We deny Richardson’s motions to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government expense and 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Mike Anthony Richardson 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. Richardson v. Captain Gray, No. 4:08-cv-03539-RBH, 2010 WL 4809429 (D.S.C. Nov. 19, 2010). We deny Richardson’s motions to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government expense and 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. Gray, 433 F. App'x 176 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

433 F. App'x 176 (Richardson v. Gray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related