Yowel v. Gilmore

Fourth Circuit

Yowel v. Gilmore

35 F. App'x 63

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 2002

DocketNo. 02-6316

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 F. App'x 63 (Yowel v. Gilmore) 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

Yowel v. Gilmore, 35 F. App'x 63 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Habakkuk E.B. Yowel appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Yowel v. Gilmore, No. CA-01-952-2 (E.D. Va., filed Feb. 6, 2002; entered Feb. 7, 2002). 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.

Habakkuk E.B. Yowel appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Yowel v. Gilmore, No. CA-01-952-2 (E.D. Va., filed Feb. 6, 2002; entered Feb. 7, 2002). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 F. App'x 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yowel-v-gilmore-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack