Sullivan v. Allen

Fourth Circuit

Sullivan v. Allen

101 F. App'x 931

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 2, 2004

DocketNo. 04-6694

StatusPublished

This text of 101 F. App'x 931 (Sullivan v. Allen) 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

Sullivan v. Allen, 101 F. App'x 931 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

David Farrell Sullivan appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Sullivan v. Allen, No. CA-03-3841-7-26 (D.S.C. Mar. 5, 2004). 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 Farrell Sullivan appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Sullivan v. Allen, No. CA-03-3841-7-26 (D.S.C. Mar. 5, 2004). 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)

101 F. App'x 931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-allen-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack