Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. South Carolina Dept, 03-7388 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7388 Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 05, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7388 KENNETH L. SMITH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LEON VISINTAINER, Prison Industries Supervisor; HERMAN PEEPELS, Prison Industries Supervisor, sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-795-6-20AK) Submi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7388 KENNETH L. SMITH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LEON VISINTAINER, Prison Industries Supervisor; HERMAN PEEPELS, Prison Industries Supervisor, sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-795-6-20AK) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 5, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth L. Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Scott Timothy Justice, HORGER, HORGER & JUSTICE, LLC, Orangeburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kenneth L. Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr., No. CA-03-795-6-20AK (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2003). 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