Woltz v. Bailey

Fourth Circuit

Woltz v. Bailey

390 F. App'x 223

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 4, 2010·No. No. 09-7119·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Howell W. Woltz appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 [224]*224U.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. See Woltz v. Bailey, No. 3:09-ev-00211-GCM, 2009 WL 1564142 (W.D.N.C. June 1, 2009). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Howell W. Woltz appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 [224]*224U.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. See Woltz v. Bailey, No. 3:09-ev-00211-GCM, 2009 WL 1564142 (W.D.N.C. June 1, 2009). 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.

Woltz v. Bailey, 390 F. App'x 223 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

390 F. App'x 223 (Woltz v. Bailey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related