Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. Safrit, 95-7363 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7363 Visitors: 25
Filed: Jan. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7363 ROBERT LEE SMITH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANNY SAFRIT; SERGEANT GRIGGS; B. SMITH, Sergeant; CHARLES STEVENSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Russell A. Eliason, Magis- trate Judge. (CA-94-305-2) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7363 ROBERT LEE SMITH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANNY SAFRIT; SERGEANT GRIGGS; B. SMITH, Sergeant; CHARLES STEVENSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Russell A. Eliason, Magis- trate Judge. (CA-94-305-2) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sylvia Hargett Thibaut, Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth F. Parsons, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. The parties con- sented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Smith v. Safrit, No. CA-94-305-2 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 1995). 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
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