Filed: Sep. 08, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6879 LARRY EUGENE SMITH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARBARA POHLMAN, Dr., in her individual capacity; PAULA SMITH, Dr., in her individual capacity; GEORGE E. CURRIE, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-759-5-H) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 8,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6879 LARRY EUGENE SMITH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARBARA POHLMAN, Dr., in her individual capacity; PAULA SMITH, Dr., in her individual capacity; GEORGE E. CURRIE, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-759-5-H) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 8, 2..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6879 LARRY EUGENE SMITH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARBARA POHLMAN, Dr., in her individual capacity; PAULA SMITH, Dr., in her individual capacity; GEORGE E. CURRIE, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-759-5-H) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 8, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Eugene Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Larry Eugene Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Pohlman, No. CA-01-759- 5-H (E.D.N.C. filed Nov. 19, 2002 & entered Nov. 20, 2002; Jan. 31, 2003). We also deny Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel as well as his motion for costs. 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