Filed: Jan. 23, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7405 DAVID LEE SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-688-1) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 23, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lee Smith, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7405 DAVID LEE SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-688-1) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 23, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lee Smith, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7405 DAVID LEE SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-688-1) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 23, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Lee Smith appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. North Carolina, No. CA-02-688-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Sept. 9, 2002; entered Sept. 10, 2002). We deny Smith’s motions for class certification and a temporary restraining order. 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
