Stevens v. Unknown Name Clerk

472 F. App'x 200
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 30, 2012·No. No. 11-2417·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Tommy Lee Stevens appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to reopen and affirming its earlier order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his mandamus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stevens v. Unknown Name Clerk, No. 5:11-cv-00519-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 15, 2011). 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

Stevens v. Unknown Name Clerk, 472 F. App'x 200 (4th Cir. 2012).

472 F. App'x 200 (Stevens v. Unknown Name Clerk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Proceedings in forma pauperis
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)