Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lorenzo Richardson v. State of North Carolina, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Lorenzo Dominic Richardson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the State of North Carolina. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. Richardson's motion for relief was denied and oral argument was not required.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-02-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-1744

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Lorenzo Dominic Richardson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the State of North Carolina. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. Richardson's motion for relief was denied and oral argument was not required.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12 views2 pages

    Lorenzo Richardson v. State of North Carolina, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Lorenzo Dominic Richardson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the State of North Carolina. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. Richardson's motion for relief was denied and oral argument was not required.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-1744

    LORENZO DOMINIC RICHARDSON,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Dever, III,
    Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-00081-D)

    Submitted:

    February 9, 2012

    Decided:

    December 13, 2012

    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Lorenzo Dominic Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Lorenzo
    courts

    order

    Dominic

    accepting

    Richardson

    the

    appeals

    recommendation

    of

    the
    the

    district
    magistrate

    judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint under


    28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006).
    and find no reversible error.
    reasons

    stated

    by

    the

    We have reviewed the record

    Accordingly, we affirm for the

    district

    court.

    Richardson

    v.

    Carolina, No. 5:11-cv-00081-D (E.D.N.C. July 5, 2011).


    Richardsons

    motion

    for

    relief,

    and

    we

    dispense

    North

    We deny

    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

    You might also like