Thomas v. Ross

Fourth Circuit

Thomas v. Ross

631 F. App'x 160

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 2016

DocketNo. 15-7622

StatusPublished

This text of 631 F. App'x 160 (Thomas v. Ross) 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

Thomas v. Ross, 631 F. App'x 160 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Marcus D. Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Specifically, we conclude that Thomas has presented no evidence that Defendants fabricated the documents submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment and that the district court did not err in denying Thomas’ motions for appointment of counsel and to subpoena [161]*161witnesses. Accordingly, we deny Thomas’ motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Ross, No. I:13-cv00989-TSE-MSN, 2015 WL 5786638 (E.D.Va. Sept. 29, 2015). 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

PER CURIAM:

Marcus D. Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Specifically, we conclude that Thomas has presented no evidence that Defendants fabricated the documents submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment and that the district court did not err in denying Thomas’ motions for appointment of counsel and to subpoena [161]*161witnesses. Accordingly, we deny Thomas’ motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Ross, No. I:13-cv00989-TSE-MSN, 2015 WL 5786638 (E.D.Va. Sept. 29, 2015). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

631 F. App'x 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-ross-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack