Smith v. Bridgestone Firestone Tire Co.

Fourth Circuit

Smith v. Bridgestone Firestone Tire Co.

328 F. App'x 874

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 27, 2009

DocketNo. 09-1222

StatusPublished

This text of 328 F. App'x 874 (Smith v. Bridgestone Firestone Tire Co.) 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

Smith v. Bridgestone Firestone Tire Co., 328 F. App'x 874 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Marion Smith appeals from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice and for lack of jurisdiction his civil action filed against Bridgestone Firestone Tire Company, Ford. Motor Company, and Donnie Howard. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Bridgestone Fire[875]*875stone Tire Co., No. 1:08-cv-03049-MBS, 2009 WL 425936 (D.S.C. filed Feb. 18, 2009; entered Feb. 19, 2009). We deny Smith’s motion for transcripts at government expense and 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.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Marion Smith appeals from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice and for lack of jurisdiction his civil action filed against Bridgestone Firestone Tire Company, Ford. Motor Company, and Donnie Howard. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Bridgestone Fire[875]*875stone Tire Co., No. 1:08-cv-03049-MBS, 2009 WL 425936 (D.S.C. filed Feb. 18, 2009; entered Feb. 19, 2009). We deny Smith’s motion for transcripts at government expense and 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 F. App'x 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-bridgestone-firestone-tire-co-ca4-2009.