Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. Charleston County School Dist, 06-2001 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-2001 Visitors: 48
Filed: Jan. 30, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2001 WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:06-cv-02177) Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: January 30, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2001 WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:06-cv-02177) Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: January 30, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se. Alice F. Paylor, Daniel Francis Blanchard, III, ROSEN, ROSEN & HAGOOD, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wesley Edward Smith, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Charleston County School Dist., No. 2:06-cv-02177 (D.S.C. Sept. 5, 2006). 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