CHISLEY v. HOLWAGER, 10-7184. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20110922108
Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 22, 2011
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2011
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Mustafan Chisley appeals the district court's order 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. Chisley v. Holwager , No. 8:09-cv-02099-DKC (D. Md. July 9, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mat
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Mustafan Chisley appeals the district court's order 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. Chisley v. Holwager , No. 8:09-cv-02099-DKC (D. Md. July 9, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Mustafan Chisley appeals the district court's order 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. Chisley v. Holwager, No. 8:09-cv-02099-DKC (D. Md. July 9, 2010). 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.
FootNotes
* We previously remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose of enabling the court to determine whether Chisley had shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of time to appeal. Chisley v. Holwager, 2011 WL 1320688 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2011) (No. 10-7184). On remand, the district court granted his motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. His appeal is therefore deemed timely filed.
Source: Leagle
