Thorne v. Hale

Fourth Circuit

Thorne v. Hale

370 F. App'x 437

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 19, 2010·No. No. 09-2305·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William G. Thorne appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claims against them. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Thorne v. Hale, No. 1:08-cv-00601-JCC-TRJ, 2009 WL 3733344 (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 29, 2009; entered Oct. 30, 2009). .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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

William G. Thorne appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claims against them. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Thorne v. Hale, No. 1:08-cv-00601-JCC-TRJ, 2009 WL 3733344 (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 29, 2009; entered Oct. 30, 2009). .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.

Thorne v. Hale, 370 F. App'x 437 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

370 F. App'x 437 (Thorne v. Hale) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related