Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Franklin Smith v. Corporal Baldwin, 12-6845 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-6845 Visitors: 48
Filed: Jun. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6845 FRANKLIN C. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CORPORAL BALDWIN, corporal-morning shift (8:00 to 6:00 p.m.); MR. WILLIAMS, Classification Officer, Bankers hours; MR. STEWART, Counselor and Classification Officer, Bankers hours; RODNEY L. JACKSON; LT. STEVEN P. GALLAGHER; SERGEANT SMITH, Sergeant at Norfolk City Jail; CAPTAIN BACON, Captain at Norfolk City Jail; CAPTAIN MOORE, Captain at Norfolk City Jail; CORPORAL MCCART
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6845 FRANKLIN C. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CORPORAL BALDWIN, corporal-morning shift (8:00 to 6:00 p.m.); MR. WILLIAMS, Classification Officer, Bankers hours; MR. STEWART, Counselor and Classification Officer, Bankers hours; RODNEY L. JACKSON; LT. STEVEN P. GALLAGHER; SERGEANT SMITH, Sergeant at Norfolk City Jail; CAPTAIN BACON, Captain at Norfolk City Jail; CAPTAIN MOORE, Captain at Norfolk City Jail; CORPORAL MCCARTHY, Corporal at Norfolk City Jail; DEPUTY WILLOUGHBY, Deputy at Norfolk City Jail; MS. GREEN, Mental Health Dept.; MR. GULTEREZ, Mental Health Dept.; DEPUTY INVENTO, Deputy; UNKNOWN DEPUTY WITH RIFLE, Deputy, Defendants – Appellees, and ROBERT J. MCCABE, Sheriff over the Norfolk City Jail, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00033-MSD-DEM) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 20, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin C. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Franklin C. Smith appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Baldwin, No. 2:10-cv-00033-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2012). 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