SMITH v. MATHIS, 12-6414. (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20120824105
Visitors: 15
Filed: Aug. 24, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 24, 2012
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Russell Smith appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Mathis, No. 8:08-cv-03302-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 26, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Russell Smith appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Mathis, No. 8:08-cv-03302-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 26, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before ..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Russell Smith appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Mathis, No. 8:08-cv-03302-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 26, 2012). 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.
Source: Leagle
