Smith v. Ketchem

Fourth Circuit

Smith v. Ketchem

45 F. App'x 254

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 4, 2002·No. No. 02-1335·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas E. 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Ketchem, No. CA-01-176-1 [255] (N.D.W.Va. Mar. 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.

Thomas E. 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Ketchem, No. CA-01-176-1 [255] (N.D.W.Va. Mar. 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. Ketchem, 45 F. App'x 254 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

45 F. App'x 254 (Smith v. Ketchem) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related