Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Smith v. State of NC, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views3 pages
    This document summarizes two consolidated appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The district court had dismissed two cases filed by Florence Amelia Smith, denied her motions to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered that future filings be screened. The appeals court reviewed the records and found no reversible error, denying Smith's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the appeals as frivolous based on the reasoning of the district court. The appeals court also denied Smith's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-01-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-2218

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes two consolidated appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The district court had dismissed two cases filed by Florence Amelia Smith, denied her motions to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered that future filings be screened. The appeals court reviewed the records and found no reversible error, denying Smith's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the appeals as frivolous based on the reasoning of the district court. The appeals court also denied Smith's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    Smith v. State of NC, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two consolidated appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The district court had dismissed two cases filed by Florence Amelia Smith, denied her motions to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered that future filings be screened. The appeals court reviewed the records and found no reversible error, denying Smith's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the appeals as frivolous based on the reasoning of the district court. The appeals court also denied Smith's motion for appointment of counsel.

    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. 00-2218

    FLORENCE AMELIA SMITH,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    No. 00-2277

    FLORENCE AMELIA SMITH,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    LARRY J. WILSON, Judge; ANDREW C. NEISLER,
    JR., Attorney; ANNA F. FOSTER, Judge,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
    Judge. (CA-00-193-1-T, CA-00-160-1-T)

    Submitted:

    January 11, 2001

    Decided:

    January 17, 2001

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Florence Amelia Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, Florence Amelia Smith appeals
    the district courts orders dismissing her cases, denying her
    motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordering that
    any of her future district court pleadings be reviewed by the court
    prior to filing.

    We have reviewed the records in both cases and

    the district courts orders and find no reversible error.

    Accord-

    ingly, we deny Smiths motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals as frivolous on the reasoning of the
    district court.

    See Smith v. North Carolina, No. CA-00-193-1-T

    (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29 & Sept. 13, 2000); Smith v. Wilson, No. CA-00160-1-T (W.D.N.C. July 25 & Aug. 10, 2000).*

    We also deny Smiths

    motion for appointment of counsel filed in No. 00-2277.

    We dis-

    pense 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.

    DISMISSED

    Although the district courts August 29, 2000, order in No.


    00-2218 is marked as filed on August 28, 2000, the district
    courts records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on
    August 29, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal
    Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered
    on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the
    district courts decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232,
    1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
    3

    You might also like