Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mayers v. Smith, 02-6990 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6990 Visitors: 51
Filed: Sep. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6990 CARL KOFI MAYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOMMIE SMITH, Officer, acting in his individual capacity and under color of law; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-1961-AM) Submitted: September 12, 2002 Decided: September 23, 200
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6990 CARL KOFI MAYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOMMIE SMITH, Officer, acting in his individual capacity and under color of law; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-1961-AM) Submitted: September 12, 2002 Decided: September 23, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Kofi Mayers, Appellant Pro Se. Steven E. Gordon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carl Kofi Mayers appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint against two federal correctional officers under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000). 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 Mayers v. Smith, No. CA-00-1961-AM (E.D. Va. April 4 2002; May 29, 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