Richardson v. North Carolina

Fourth Circuit

Richardson v. North Carolina

465 F. App'x 242

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 13, 2012·No. No. 11-1744·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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. North Carolina, No. 5:11-cv-00081-D (E.D.N.C. July 5, 2011). We deny Richardson’s motion for relief, and 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. North Carolina, No. 5:11-cv-00081-D (E.D.N.C. July 5, 2011). We deny Richardson’s motion for relief, and 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. North Carolina, 465 F. App'x 242 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

465 F. App'x 242 (Richardson v. North Carolina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related