Rouse v. Tennis

Fourth Circuit

Rouse v. Tennis

146 F. App'x 691

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 27, 2005·No. 05-6863·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Gerry Lee Rouse, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state *692 a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rouse v. Tennis, No. CA-05-266-2 (E.D.Va. May 27, 2005). 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:

Gerry Lee Rouse, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state *692 a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rouse v. Tennis, No. CA-05-266-2 (E.D.Va. May 27, 2005). 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

Rouse v. Tennis, 146 F. App'x 691 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

146 F. App'x 691 (Rouse v. Tennis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related