Ross v. Colvin

Fourth Circuit

Ross v. Colvin

633 F. App'x 188

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 25, 2016

DocketNo. 15-2149

StatusPublished

This text of 633 F. App'x 188 (Ross v. Colvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ross v. Colvin, 633 F. App'x 188 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Hubert Ross and Audrey Deloris Ross appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing their civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the motions to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ross v. Colvin, No. 8:14-cv-02967-DKC, 2015 WL 5091919 (D.Md. Aug. 27, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Daniel Hubert Ross and Audrey Deloris Ross appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing their civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the motions to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ross v. Colvin, No. 8:14-cv-02967-DKC, 2015 WL 5091919 (D.Md. Aug. 27, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 F. App'x 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-colvin-ca4-2016.