David M. Simms v. David Smith Officer Mason Officer Chamberlin

43 F.3d 1468, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40094, 1994 WL 706119
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 20, 1994
Docket94-6234
StatusUnpublished

This text of 43 F.3d 1468 (David M. Simms v. David Smith Officer Mason Officer Chamberlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
David M. Simms v. David Smith Officer Mason Officer Chamberlin, 43 F.3d 1468, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40094, 1994 WL 706119 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

43 F.3d 1468

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
David M. SIMMS, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
David SMITH; Officer Mason; Officer Chamberlin, Defendants
Appellees.

No. 94-6234.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 29, 1994.
Decided Dec. 20, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-92-592-R)

David M. Simms, appellant pro se.

Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., William Rundahl Coleman, Mary Christine Maggard, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint, and denying his motions to compel. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion and orders discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Simms v. Smith, No. CA-92-592-R (W.D.Va. Feb. 24, 1994). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 F.3d 1468, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40094, 1994 WL 706119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-m-simms-v-david-smith-officer-mason-officer-chamberlin-ca4-1994.