Wilkerson v. Beitzel

Fourth Circuit

Wilkerson v. Beitzel

184 F. App'x 316

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 6, 2006·No. No. 05-7888·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Steven Ray Wilkerson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wilkerson v. Beitzel, No. CA-05-1270-JFM (D.Md. Nov. 10, 2005). 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:

Steven Ray Wilkerson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wilkerson v. Beitzel, No. CA-05-1270-JFM (D.Md. Nov. 10, 2005). 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.

Wilkerson v. Beitzel, 184 F. App'x 316 (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

184 F. App'x 316 (Wilkerson v. Beitzel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related