Stigall v. Thompson

Fourth Circuit

Stigall v. Thompson

92 F. App'x 962

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 12, 2004·No. No. 03-7714·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Coleman A. Stigall, III, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Stigall v. Thompson, No. CA-02-1281-7 (W.D.Va. Sept. 30, 2003). 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:

Coleman A. Stigall, III, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Stigall v. Thompson, No. CA-02-1281-7 (W.D.Va. Sept. 30, 2003). 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

Stigall v. Thompson, 92 F. App'x 962 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

92 F. App'x 962 (Stigall v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related