Smith v. Glendening

Fourth Circuit

Smith v. Glendening

45 F. App'x 317

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 18, 2002·No. No. 02-6995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Glendening, No. CA-02-10 (E.D.Va. June 20, 2002). 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.

Bernard Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Glendening, No. CA-02-10 (E.D.Va. June 20, 2002). 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. Glendening, 45 F. App'x 317 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

45 F. App'x 317 (Smith v. Glendening) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related