Tate v. Martin
This text of 583 F. App'x 60 (Tate v. Martin) 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
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
583 F. App'x 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-martin-ca4-2014.