Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Smith v. Correctional Medical Services, 03-7881 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7881 Visitors: 56
Filed: May 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7881 JOHNATHAN LEE X SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; MARY TARNOWSKI; O. ODUNSI; WILLINDA PURDIE; T. D. HATCHETT; BRENDA WOLFORD; R. REED; A. WILSON; LINDA W. MITCHELL; JANE DOE; C. DAVIS, Warden, K. HAMLIN; VINCENT M. GORE; PAUL OHAI; LINDA B. NHAMBURE; EARLINE HILL, V. APPLEWHITE; WILLIAM HENCEROTH; DAVID BARNES; POWHATAN RECEPTION & CLASSIFICATION CENTER; FRED SCHILLING, Defendants - Ap
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7881 JOHNATHAN LEE X SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; MARY TARNOWSKI; O. ODUNSI; WILLINDA PURDIE; T. D. HATCHETT; BRENDA WOLFORD; R. REED; A. WILSON; LINDA W. MITCHELL; JANE DOE; C. DAVIS, Warden, K. HAMLIN; VINCENT M. GORE; PAUL OHAI; LINDA B. NHAMBURE; EARLINE HILL, V. APPLEWHITE; WILLIAM HENCEROTH; DAVID BARNES; POWHATAN RECEPTION & CLASSIFICATION CENTER; FRED SCHILLING, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-665) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnathan Lee X Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Johnathan Lee X Smith appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), for failure to pay the filing fee, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. CA-03-665 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2003 & Nov. 17, 2003). 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. DISMISSED - 3 -
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