Richardson v. Greene

465 F. App'x 230
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Richardson v. Greene. Read the opinion of the Court — 465 F. App'x 240
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 13, 2012·No. No. 11-1743·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his complaint in which he sought to appeal the state court’s denial of his request to appeal his North Carolina criminal conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). Accordingly, we deny Richardson’s motion for relief and affirm for the [231]*231reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Greene, No. 5:11-cv-00072-H (E.D.N.C. July 6, 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

Richardson v. Greene, 465 F. App'x 230 (4th Cir. 2012).

465 F. App'x 230 (Richardson v. Greene) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
460 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 1983)