Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Smith v. Pearson, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    Byron Smith, an inmate at Sussex State Prison, filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against prison officials alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing Smith's claims. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the grant of summary judgment. The appellate court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed the case based on the reasoning set forth in its unpublished opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-02-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7690

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Byron Smith, an inmate at Sussex State Prison, filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against prison officials alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing Smith's claims. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the grant of summary judgment. The appellate court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed the case based on the reasoning set forth in its unpublished opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    0 views3 pages

    Smith v. Pearson, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Byron Smith, an inmate at Sussex State Prison, filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against prison officials alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing Smith's claims. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the grant of summary judgment. The appellate court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed the case based on the reasoning set forth in its unpublished opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7690

    BYRON D. SMITH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    EDDIE
    PEARSON,
    Warden;
    D.
    B.
    EVERETT,
    Assistant Warden of Operation; R. SPEIGHT,
    Safety Inspector; HOUSTON SHIFLETT, Unit
    Manager, Building 2; MR. HAWKES, Unit Manager,
    Building 2; BENJAMIN ULEP, Head Doctor; WANDA
    ROLLINS, Operations Officer; MR. LIPTROTT,
    Unit Sargent,
    Defendants - Appellees,

    and
    SUSSEX STATE PRISON,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CA-03-338)

    Submitted:

    February 9, 2005

    Decided:

    February 16, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Byron D. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Carlton Hollowell, OFFICE


    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Edward
    Joseph McNelis, III, Coreen Antoinette Bromfield, John David
    McChesney, Ashton Marie Jennette, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Byron D. Smith appeals the district court order granting
    the defendants motion for summary judgment and dismissing his 42
    U.S.C. 1983 (2000) action.

    We have reviewed the record and the

    district

    and

    courts

    opinion

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See


    Smith

    v.

    Pearson,

    (unpublished).

    No.

    CA-03-338

    (E.D.

    Va.

    Sept.

    24,

    2004)

    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like