Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Smith v. United States, 09-1651 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1651 Visitors: 17
Filed: Nov. 19, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1651 KEVIN MICHAEL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellee, and DR. PATRIBA CHITTRA MEDDA, a/k/a Petriba Chittra Medda, a/k/a Chitra Medda, a/k/a Chiddra Medda, a/k/a Chittra Medda, VMAC Salisbury and Chrlotte Clinic 1601 Brenner Ave Salisbury, NC 28144, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinge
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1651 KEVIN MICHAEL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellee, and DR. PATRIBA CHITTRA MEDDA, a/k/a Petriba Chittra Medda, a/k/a Chitra Medda, a/k/a Chiddra Medda, a/k/a Chittra Medda, VMAC Salisbury and Chrlotte Clinic 1601 Brenner Ave Salisbury, NC 28144, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00427-MR-DCK) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Michael Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Sidney P. Alexander, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Michael Smith appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Smith’s Federal Tort Claims Act suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. United States, No. 3:08-cv-00427-MR-DCK (W.D.N.C. June 2, 2009). We grant Smith’s motion to supplement the record and deny the remainder of Smith’s pending motions. 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 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