Rychwalski v. Clayton

Fourth Circuit

Rychwalski v. Clayton

540 F. App'x 201

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 30, 2013·No. No. 13-6972·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Louis Rychwalski, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rychwalski v. Clayton, No. 1:12-cv-02259-GLR, 2013 WL 3009301 (D.Md. June 14, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately [202] 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Louis Rychwalski, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rychwalski v. Clayton, No. 1:12-cv-02259-GLR, 2013 WL 3009301 (D.Md. June 14, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately [202] presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Rychwalski v. Clayton, 540 F. App'x 201 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

540 F. App'x 201 (Rychwalski v. Clayton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related