Filed: Sep. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6724 KYLE DELANO SMITH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SUSSEX I STATE PRISON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:14-cv-00058-HEH-MHL) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6724 KYLE DELANO SMITH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SUSSEX I STATE PRISON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:14-cv-00058-HEH-MHL) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6724
KYLE DELANO SMITH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SUSSEX I STATE PRISON,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:14-cv-00058-HEH-MHL)
Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kyle Delano Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kyle Delano Smith appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) suit without prejudice.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Smith v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 3:14-cv-00058-HEH-MHL (E.D.
Va. May 1, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2