Filed: Sep. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6995 BERNARD SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARRIS N. GLENDENING, State of Maryland, Governor; ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Mayor, Washington D.C.; DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-10) Submitted: September 9, 2002 Decided: September 18,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6995 BERNARD SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARRIS N. GLENDENING, State of Maryland, Governor; ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Mayor, Washington D.C.; DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-10) Submitted: September 9, 2002 Decided: September 18, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6995 BERNARD SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARRIS N. GLENDENING, State of Maryland, Governor; ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Mayor, Washington D.C.; DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-10) Submitted: September 9, 2002 Decided: September 18, 2002 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bernard Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Glendening, No. CA-02-10 (E.D. Va. June 20, 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