Thompson v. Wade

Fourth Circuit

Thompson v. Wade

433 F. App'x 153

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 1, 2011·No. No. 11-6233·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Paul Cleveland Thompson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no . reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thompson v. Wade, No. 2:10-cv-00174-RBS-TEM (E.D.Va. Jan. 18, 2011). We deny Thompson’s motion for a declaratory judgment and for a preliminary and a permanent injunction. 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Paul Cleveland Thompson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no . reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thompson v. Wade, No. 2:10-cv-00174-RBS-TEM (E.D.Va. Jan. 18, 2011). We deny Thompson’s motion for a declaratory judgment and for a preliminary and a permanent injunction. 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.

Thompson v. Wade, 433 F. App'x 153 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

433 F. App'x 153 (Thompson v. Wade) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related