Narrative Opinion Summary
The court affirmed the district court's order that dismissed Anthony Fred Martin's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The dismissal followed the recommendation of a magistrate judge, and the appellate court found no reversible error upon reviewing the record. The decision cites the case as Martin v. McCall, No. 4:13-cv-01567-DCN, with a filing date of September 20, 2013, and an entry date of September 23, 2013. The court opted not to hold oral argument, stating that the facts and legal arguments were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials, and that oral argument would not contribute to the decision-making process. The ruling is noted to be an unpublished opinion, which does not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal of Complaints Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under the statute pertaining to frivolous or malicious claims, or those failing to state a claim.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the district court's order that dismissed Anthony Fred Martin's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Oral Argument Not Required for Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court decided the case without oral argument, determining that the available written materials adequately presented the necessary facts and legal arguments.
Reasoning: The court opted not to hold oral argument, stating that the facts and legal arguments were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials, and that oral argument would not contribute to the decision-making process.
Standards for Appellate Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court conducted a review of the record and found no reversible error, affirming the lower court's decision.
Reasoning: The appellate court found no reversible error upon reviewing the record.
Unpublished Opinions as Non-Precedentialsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision was issued as an unpublished opinion, clarifying that it does not serve as binding precedent within the circuit.
Reasoning: The ruling is noted to be an unpublished opinion, which does not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.