Rowl v. Smith Debnam Narron Wyche Saintsing & Myers, LLP

Fourth Circuit

Rowl v. Smith Debnam Narron Wyche Saintsing & Myers, LLP

376 F. App'x 329

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 29, 2010·No. No. 09-1701·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Pauline Rowl appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her federal civil rights suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rowl v. Smith Debnam Narrow, Wyche Saintsing & Myers, LLP, No. 3:07-cv-00491-RJC-DLH, 2009 WL 187575 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 23, 2009) & (June 4, 2009). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Pauline Rowl appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her federal civil rights suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rowl v. Smith Debnam Narrow, Wyche Saintsing & Myers, LLP, No. 3:07-cv-00491-RJC-DLH, 2009 WL 187575 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 23, 2009) & (June 4, 2009). 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.

Rowl v. Smith Debnam Narron Wyche Saintsing & Myers, LLP, 376 F. App'x 329 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

376 F. App'x 329 (Rowl v. Smith Debnam Narron Wyche Saintsing & Myers, LLP) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.