Filed: Nov. 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7147 RONALD R. SMITHERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SAL A. BARONE, Detective, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-698) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald R. Smither
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7147 RONALD R. SMITHERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SAL A. BARONE, Detective, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-698) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald R. Smitherm..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7147 RONALD R. SMITHERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SAL A. BARONE, Detective, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-698) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald R. Smitherman, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Louis Lilley, Mark Douglas Stiles, Roderick Ramsey Ingram, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald R. Smitherman appeals the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) 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 Smitherman v. Barone, No. CA-99-698 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
