Tate v. Martin

583 F. App'x 60
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 2, 2014·No. No. 14-6508·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Edmond Tate appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for the appointment of counsel, the district court’s text order denying Tate’s motions to compel, and the district court’s final order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tate v. Martin, No. 1:10-cv-00616-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C. May 10, 2012; Jan. 3, 2014; Mar. 20, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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

Tate v. Martin, 583 F. App'x 60 (4th Cir. 2014).

583 F. App'x 60 (Tate v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related