Watson v. Clarke

Fourth Circuit

Watson v. Clarke

670 F. App'x 800

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 21, 2016

DocketNo. 16-6524

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 670 F. App'x 800 (Watson v. Clarke) 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

Watson v. Clarke, 670 F. App'x 800 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

[801]*801Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Audrel Jack Watson, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing several Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012), denying reconsideration, and granting Defendant Bowles’ motion for summary judgment in Watson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Watson v. Clarke, No. 1:14-cv-01315-GBL-MSN (E.D. Va. filed June 2, 2015, & entered June 3, 2015; July 1, 2015; Mar. 24, 2016). We deny Watson’s motion for transcripts at government expense. 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

[801]*801Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Audrel Jack Watson, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing several Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012), denying reconsideration, and granting Defendant Bowles’ motion for summary judgment in Watson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Watson v. Clarke, No. 1:14-cv-01315-GBL-MSN (E.D. Va. filed June 2, 2015, & entered June 3, 2015; July 1, 2015; Mar. 24, 2016). We deny Watson’s motion for transcripts at government expense. 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)

670 F. App'x 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-clarke-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack