Smith v. Galley

Fourth Circuit

Smith v. Galley

124 F. App'x 216

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 31, 2005·No. No. 05-6021·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Smith’s motion to protect his appeal from default, deny Smith’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Warden, No. CA-02-4123-1-WDQ (D.Md. Dec. 1, 2004). 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:

Joshua Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Smith’s motion to protect his appeal from default, deny Smith’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Warden, No. CA-02-4123-1-WDQ (D.Md. Dec. 1, 2004). 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. Galley, 124 F. App'x 216 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

124 F. App'x 216 (Smith v. Galley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related