Filed: Feb. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2243 JAMES LAWRENCE SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HONORABLE ED CLONTZ; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2; MARTHA ELIZABETH GRIST; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00269-MR-DLH) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015 Before MOTZ,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2243 JAMES LAWRENCE SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HONORABLE ED CLONTZ; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2; MARTHA ELIZABETH GRIST; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00269-MR-DLH) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015 Before MOTZ, W..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2243
JAMES LAWRENCE SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HONORABLE ED CLONTZ; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JANE DOE 1;
JANE DOE 2; MARTHA ELIZABETH GRIST; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00269-MR-DLH)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Lawrence Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Lawrence Smith appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his civil rights complaint for failure to state
a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v.
Clontz, No. 1:14-cv-00269-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. filed Oct. 20, 2014,
entered Oct. 21, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2