Smith v. Beck

Fourth Circuit

Smith v. Beck

28 F. App'x 281

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. Beck. Read the opinion of the Court — 55 F. App'x 142 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 7, 2002·No. 01-7583·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Beck, No. CA-00-537-5-2BR (E.D.N.C. July 25, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *282 and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Beck, No. CA-00-537-5-2BR (E.D.N.C. July 25, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *282 and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Smith v. Beck, 28 F. App'x 281 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

28 F. App'x 281 (Smith v. Beck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related