Filed: Mar. 31, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7859 EARVIN SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STUBBLEFIELD, Security/ Jailer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-98-1399-2) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7859 EARVIN SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STUBBLEFIELD, Security/ Jailer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-98-1399-2) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7859 EARVIN SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STUBBLEFIELD, Security/ Jailer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-98-1399-2) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earvin Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Earvin Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Stubblefield, Corr. Officer, No. CA- 98-1399-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 21, 1998). 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
