Spicknall v. Maryland

Fourth Circuit

Spicknall v. Maryland

42 F. App'x 667

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 23, 2002

DocketNo. 02-1305

StatusPublished

This text of 42 F. App'x 667 (Spicknall v. Maryland) 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

Spicknall v. Maryland, 42 F. App'x 667 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Lisa Marie Spicknall appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985 (West Supp.2002) action. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Spicknall v. Maryland, No. CA-01-886-MJG (D.Md. Feb. 19, 2002). 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:

Lisa Marie Spicknall appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985 (West Supp.2002) action. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Spicknall v. Maryland, No. CA-01-886-MJG (D.Md. Feb. 19, 2002). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 F. App'x 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spicknall-v-maryland-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack