Smith v. McGraw

Fourth Circuit

Smith v. McGraw

479 F. App'x 465

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 1, 2012

DocketNo. 12-1698

StatusPublished

This text of 479 F. App'x 465 (Smith v. McGraw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. McGraw, 479 F. App'x 465 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cynthia G. Smith appeals the magistrate judge’s and district court’s various pretrial orders, the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this civil action, and a subsequent order denying Smith’s motions for reconsideration and recusal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. McGraw, No. 8:10-cv-02310-AW, 2012 WL 603238 (D.Md. Aug. 30, 2011; Oct. 4, 2011; Oct. 7, 2011; Nov. 2, 2011, Feb. 23, 2012 & May 1, 2012). We grant Smith’s motions to extend time to file a reply brief, to consolidate appeals, and to file a corrected informal brief, but deny her motion to amend/correct record. 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cynthia G. Smith appeals the magistrate judge’s and district court’s various pretrial orders, the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this civil action, and a subsequent order denying Smith’s motions for reconsideration and recusal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. McGraw, No. 8:10-cv-02310-AW, 2012 WL 603238 (D.Md. Aug. 30, 2011; Oct. 4, 2011; Oct. 7, 2011; Nov. 2, 2011, Feb. 23, 2012 & May 1, 2012). We grant Smith’s motions to extend time to file a reply brief, to consolidate appeals, and to file a corrected informal brief, but deny her motion to amend/correct record. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 F. App'x 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-mcgraw-ca4-2012.