Stevens v. Unknown Name Clerk
This text of 472 F. App'x 200 (Stevens v. Unknown Name Clerk) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
472 F. App'x 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-unknown-name-clerk-ca4-2012.