Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. Bessinger, 97-7026 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7026 Visitors: 19
Filed: Feb. 10, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7026 KEVIN SMITH, a/k/a Bar-None-Royal Blackness, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LAURIE F. BESSINGER; JOYCE BROWN; VAUGHN JACK- SON; MARCELLA MCCOY; JUDY C. ANDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-97-51-O-23BD) Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: February 10, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7026 KEVIN SMITH, a/k/a Bar-None-Royal Blackness, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LAURIE F. BESSINGER; JOYCE BROWN; VAUGHN JACK- SON; MARCELLA MCCOY; JUDY C. ANDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-97-51-O-23BD) Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: February 10, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) com- plaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Bessinger, No. CA-97-51-O-23BD (D.S.C. June 20, 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. DISMISSED 2
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