Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Smith v. Miro, 01-2306 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2306 Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2306 KENNETH L. SMITH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GERALDINE MIRO, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution, sued in her individual and official capacity; L. COHEN, Classification Supervisor of the Allendale Correctional Institution, sued in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Henry M. Herlong, Jr.,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2306 KENNETH L. SMITH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GERALDINE MIRO, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution, sued in her individual and official capacity; L. COHEN, Classification Supervisor of the Allendale Correctional Institution, sued in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3231-1-20AK) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth L. Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, LAW OFFICE OF DUFFIE STONE, Bluffton, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kenneth L. Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting, in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Miro, No. CA-00-3231-1-20AK (D.S.C. filed Oct. 10, 2001 & entered Oct. 11, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer