Howard v. Smith
This text of Howard v. Smith (Howard v. Smith) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6494
JEROME ANTHONY HOWARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MR. SMITH, Physician/WRSP; S. K. YOUNG, Warden/WRSP,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-144-7)
Submitted: August 29, 2005 Decided: November 8, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Anthony Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Edward Frye, PENN STUART & ESKRIDGE, Bristol, Tennessee; Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Jerome Anthony Howard appeals the district court’s order
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. See Howard v.
Smith, No. CA-03-144-7 (W.D. Va. filed Mar. 23, 2005 & entered
Mar. 24, 2005). We further deny Howard’s motion for the
appointment of counsel. 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 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Howard v. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-smith-ca4-2005.