Smith v. Pearson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 16, 2005
• Docket: 04-7690
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7690

BYRON D. SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

EDDIE PEARSON, Warden; D. B. EVERETT, Assistant Warden of Operation; R. SPEIGHT, Safety Inspector; HOUSTON SHIFLETT, Unit Manager, Building 2; MR. HAWKES, Unit Manager, Building 2; BENJAMIN ULEP, Head Doctor; WANDA ROLLINS, Operations Officer; MR. LIPTROTT, Unit Sargent,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

SUSSEX STATE PRISON,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-338)

Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Byron D. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Carlton Hollowell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Edward Joseph McNelis, III, Coreen Antoinette Bromfield, John David McChesney, Ashton Marie Jennette, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Byron D. Smith appeals the district court order granting

the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. 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. Pearson, No. CA-03-338 (E.D. Va. Sept. 24, 2004)

(unpublished). 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

- 3 -