Filed: Jan. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7543 LEONARD A. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT; TONY ELLIS; LARRY C. BATSON; PRISON INDUSTRIES/PRIVATE SECTOR DIVISION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOHN DOE, President of ESCOD Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; GENE BAKER, Defendants - Appellees, versus DAVID JOHN LEWIS; WILLIAM C. BRIDGEMAN, Movants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Car
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7543 LEONARD A. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT; TONY ELLIS; LARRY C. BATSON; PRISON INDUSTRIES/PRIVATE SECTOR DIVISION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOHN DOE, President of ESCOD Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; GENE BAKER, Defendants - Appellees, versus DAVID JOHN LEWIS; WILLIAM C. BRIDGEMAN, Movants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Caro..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7543 LEONARD A. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT; TONY ELLIS; LARRY C. BATSON; PRISON INDUSTRIES/PRIVATE SECTOR DIVISION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOHN DOE, President of ESCOD Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; GENE BAKER, Defendants - Appellees, versus DAVID JOHN LEWIS; WILLIAM C. BRIDGEMAN, Movants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-95-317-6-OAK) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas C.R. Legare, Jr., NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals that portion of the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint relating to Appellees' taking of funds from him without court order for payment into a victim's compensation fund. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion as to this issue and find no rever- sible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. Smith v. Evatt, No. CA-95-317-6-OAK (D.S.C. Sept. 16, 1996). We decline to review any claims Appellant seeks to raise for the first time on appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2 3