The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
04-7210•Tommy Richardson v. Boyd Bennett
04-7210Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 24, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7210
TOMMY RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BOYD BENNETT; JOSEPH H. LOFTON; WILLIAM L.
BURDEN, JR.; P. ASBELL; R. BROADNAX,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-211-5-BO)
Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tommy Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Richardson 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)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. See Richardson v. Bennett, No. CA-04-211-5-
BO (E.D.N.C. June 21, 2004). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.