Filed: Jan. 28, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7278 MICHAEL SEWELL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUFUS R. FLEMING, Warden; CAPTAIN BENNETT; CAPTAIN WHITLOW; M. HICKS; G. WADE; M. L. HILL; SERGEANT WHITEHEAD; SERGEANT FERGUSON; SERGEANT MOORE; C/O GOIN; C/O HUDSON; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7278 MICHAEL SEWELL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUFUS R. FLEMING, Warden; CAPTAIN BENNETT; CAPTAIN WHITLOW; M. HICKS; G. WADE; M. L. HILL; SERGEANT WHITEHEAD; SERGEANT FERGUSON; SERGEANT MOORE; C/O GOIN; C/O HUDSON; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-9..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7278 MICHAEL SEWELL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUFUS R. FLEMING, Warden; CAPTAIN BENNETT; CAPTAIN WHITLOW; M. HICKS; G. WADE; M. L. HILL; SERGEANT WHITEHEAD; SERGEANT FERGUSON; SERGEANT MOORE; C/O GOIN; C/O HUDSON; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-843-2) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Sewell Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion granting summary judgment and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Fleming, No. CA-95-843-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 1997). 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 2