Simon v. Paige

Fourth Circuit

Simon v. Paige

610 F. App'x 269

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 24, 2015

DocketNo. 15-6446

StatusPublished

This text of 610 F. App'x 269 (Simon v. Paige) 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

Simon v. Paige, 610 F. App'x 269 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

[270]*270Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jovan Cornelius Simon appeals the magistrate judge’s text order denying his motion to compel and the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 408 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Simon v. Paige, No. 9:13—cv-03025-RMG, 2015 WL 1145781 (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2014; Mar. 13, 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

[270]*270Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jovan Cornelius Simon appeals the magistrate judge’s text order denying his motion to compel and the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 408 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Simon v. Paige, No. 9:13—cv-03025-RMG, 2015 WL 1145781 (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2014; Mar. 13, 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)

610 F. App'x 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simon-v-paige-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack