Scinto v. Preston

Fourth Circuit

Scinto v. Preston

391 F. App'x 232

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 12, 2010·No. No. 10-6058·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Paul Scinto, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Scinto v. Preston, No. 4:03-cv-00178-H (E.D.N.C. May 28 & Dec. 11, 2009). We grant Scin-to’s motion to exceed length limitations for his informal brief. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Paul Scinto, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Scinto v. Preston, No. 4:03-cv-00178-H (E.D.N.C. May 28 & Dec. 11, 2009). We grant Scin-to’s motion to exceed length limitations for his informal brief. 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.

Scinto v. Preston, 391 F. App'x 232 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

391 F. App'x 232 (Scinto v. Preston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related