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)
06-4952•Maurice Robinson v. KIMBERLY S. TAYLOR, Superior Court Judge
06-4952Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 9, 2008
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6542
MAURICE ROBINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KIMBERLY S. TAYLOR, Superior Court Judge; MICHELLE WALKER,
Assistant District Attorney; KAREN S. BIERNACKI, Assistant
District Attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00080-WO-RAE)
Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maurice Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Robinson appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Robinson v. Taylor,
No. 1:08-cv-00080-WO-RAE (M.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2008). 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.