Stevens v. Garraghty

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided November 25, 2003

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2003-11-25

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2004

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion · Decided 2003-11-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Bertram Stevens appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Stevens v. Garraghty, No. CA-01-859-3 (E.D.Va. May 30, 2003). 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.

¶2 AFFIRMED

¶3 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).