Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

James Willie Smith v. John B. Hatfield, Jr., 91-7549 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-7549 Visitors: 12
Filed: Aug. 21, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 941 F.2d 1207 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James Willie SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John B. HATFIELD, Jr., Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-7549. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted May 2, 1991. Decided Aug. 21, 1991. Appeal from the United States Distr
More

941 F.2d 1207

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James Willie SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John B. HATFIELD, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-7549.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 2, 1991.
Decided Aug. 21, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Norwood Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-90-617)

James Willie Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

M.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

James Willie Smith appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit.* Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Hatfield, CA-90617 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 1991). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

*

To the extent that Smith seeks to attack his conviction, he must raise this matter in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition once state remedies are exhausted

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