Filed: Feb. 22, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7378 KERRY LEE SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LIEUTENANT ROBERTSON; OFFICER SYKES; CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER SMALLWOOD, Corrections Officer of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-432-3) Submitted: February 8, 2000 Decided: February 22, 2000 Before MOTZ, TRAXL
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7378 KERRY LEE SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LIEUTENANT ROBERTSON; OFFICER SYKES; CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER SMALLWOOD, Corrections Officer of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-432-3) Submitted: February 8, 2000 Decided: February 22, 2000 Before MOTZ, TRAXLE..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7378 KERRY LEE SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LIEUTENANT ROBERTSON; OFFICER SYKES; CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER SMALLWOOD, Corrections Officer of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-432-3) Submitted: February 8, 2000 Decided: February 22, 2000 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kerry Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Rick Randall Linker, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Kerry Lee Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Robertson, No. CA-98-432-3 (E.D. Va. April 27, 1999, Sept. 30, 1999). 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