Wagner v. Stouffer

Fourth Circuit

Wagner v. Stouffer

467 F. App'x 230

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 23, 2012·No. No. 11-7664·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Michael Joseph Wagner, Sr. appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to re-open the appeal period. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wagner v. Stouffer, No. 8:10-cv-01944-AW (D.Md. Dec. 1, 2011). 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

PER CURIAM:

Michael Joseph Wagner, Sr. appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to re-open the appeal period. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wagner v. Stouffer, No. 8:10-cv-01944-AW (D.Md. Dec. 1, 2011). 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.

Wagner v. Stouffer, 467 F. App'x 230 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

467 F. App'x 230 (Wagner v. Stouffer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.