Smith v. Fahey

Fourth Circuit

Smith v. Fahey

174 F. App'x 144

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 29, 2006·No. No. 05-7615, 05-7616, 05-7617·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Gregory L. Smith, Antonio A. Anthony, and Anthony Denaro Freeman appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 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 Smith v. Fahey; Anthony v. Fahey; Freeman v. Fahey, No. CA-05-52-2 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 6, 2005 & entered Sept. 7, 2005). We also deny Appellants’ motion for reconsideration of their request to consolidate the filing fee. 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

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

PER CURIAM:

Gregory L. Smith, Antonio A. Anthony, and Anthony Denaro Freeman appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 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 Smith v. Fahey; Anthony v. Fahey; Freeman v. Fahey, No. CA-05-52-2 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 6, 2005 & entered Sept. 7, 2005). We also deny Appellants’ motion for reconsideration of their request to consolidate the filing fee. 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

Smith v. Fahey, 174 F. App'x 144 (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

174 F. App'x 144 (Smith v. Fahey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related