Stanley v. Gray

Fourth Circuit

Stanley v. Gray

235 F. App'x 163

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 16, 2007·No. No. 07-1134·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

David Kim Stanley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint, denying his motions to amend his complaint and to name defendant John Doe, and dismissing his state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stanley v. Gray, No. 2:06-cv-00031-jpj, 2007 WL 445366 (W.D.Va. Feb. 11, 2007). 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:

David Kim Stanley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint, denying his motions to amend his complaint and to name defendant John Doe, and dismissing his state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stanley v. Gray, No. 2:06-cv-00031-jpj, 2007 WL 445366 (W.D.Va. Feb. 11, 2007). 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.

Stanley v. Gray, 235 F. App'x 163 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

235 F. App'x 163 (Stanley v. Gray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related