Williams v. Stewart

Fourth Circuit

Williams v. Stewart

169 F. App'x 167

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 28, 2006·No. No. 05-7443·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Lee Robert Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000) because it was filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Stewart, No. CA-04-567 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 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:

Lee Robert Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000) because it was filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Stewart, No. CA-04-567 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 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

Williams v. Stewart, 169 F. App'x 167 (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

169 F. App'x 167 (Williams v. Stewart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related