Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. Ketchem, 02-1335 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1335 Visitors: 37
Filed: Sep. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1335 THOMAS E. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD KETCHEM, Sheriff; DANIEL MCCARTHY, Judge; TODD RIGGLEMAN; MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY, d/b/a Allegheny Power Company; PAMELA JO SWIGER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-176-1) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 4, 200
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1335 THOMAS E. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD KETCHEM, Sheriff; DANIEL MCCARTHY, Judge; TODD RIGGLEMAN; MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY, d/b/a Allegheny Power Company; PAMELA JO SWIGER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-176-1) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 4, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas E. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. David Clayton Hook, HOOK & HOOK, Waynesburg, Pennsylvania; Michael Kozakewich, Jr., STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Jeffrey Alan Kimble, ROBINSON & MCELWEE, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellees; Pamela Jo Swiger, Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas E. Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed 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. Ketchem, No. CA-01-176-1 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 20, 2002). 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