Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Smith v. Appleton Papers Inc, 02-1496 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1496 Visitors: 187
Filed: Jul. 31, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1496 BRENDA SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus APPLETON PAPERS, INCORPORATED; MOORE CORPORATION LIMITED, d/b/a Moore Business Forms, Incorporated; THE MEAD CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-01-965-2) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circ
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1496 BRENDA SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus APPLETON PAPERS, INCORPORATED; MOORE CORPORATION LIMITED, d/b/a Moore Business Forms, Incorporated; THE MEAD CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-01-965-2) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brenda Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Cowan Ervin Reid, Carlos LeMont Hopkins, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia; Lawrence Joseph Quinn, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, Baltimore, Maryland; Laurence Brian Oppenheimer, HISCOCK, BARCLAY, SAPERSTON & DAY, Buffalo, New York; Darlene Paige Bradberry, BREEDEN, SALB, BEASLEY & DUVALL, Norfolk, Virginia; Joseph Dennis Rasnek, CARPENTER, BENNETT & MORRISSEY, Newark, New Jersey, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Brenda Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Appleton Papers, Inc., No. CA-01-965- 2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 3, 2002). 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 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