Williams v. Ozmint

Fourth Circuit

Williams v. Ozmint

351 F. App'x 825

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. Ozmint. Read the opinion of the Court — 494 F.3d 478 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 13, 2009·No. No. 08-8228·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Love Williams appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. Williams v. Ozmint, No. 6:07-cv-02409-DCN, 2008 WL 4372986 (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2008). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Christopher Love Williams appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. Williams v. Ozmint, No. 6:07-cv-02409-DCN, 2008 WL 4372986 (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2008). 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.

Williams v. Ozmint, 351 F. App'x 825 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

351 F. App'x 825 (Williams v. Ozmint) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related