Smith v. Ledford

Fourth Circuit

Smith v. Ledford

203 F. App'x 484

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 24, 2006·No. No. 06-7169·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Harold Smith appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. [485]*485§ 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Ledford, No. l:06-cv-00152 (W.D.N.C. May 22, 2006, June 19, 2006). 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:

Harold Smith appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. [485]*485§ 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Ledford, No. l:06-cv-00152 (W.D.N.C. May 22, 2006, June 19, 2006). 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. Ledford, 203 F. App'x 484 (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

203 F. App'x 484 (Smith v. Ledford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related