Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Smith v. South Carolina Dept, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is a 3-sentence unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Kenneth L. Smith Jr. on his complaint alleging violations of his civil rights under 42 USC 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act related to his imprisonment. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the decision of the district court for the reasons stated in its August 11, 2003 opinion. The Court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-02-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7388

    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    This document is a 3-sentence unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Kenneth L. Smith Jr. on his complaint alleging violations of his civil rights under 42 USC 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act related to his imprisonment. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the decision of the district court for the reasons stated in its August 11, 2003 opinion. The Court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    Smith v. South Carolina Dept, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a 3-sentence unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Kenneth L. Smith Jr. on his complaint alleging violations of his civil rights under 42 USC 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act related to his imprisonment. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the decision of the district court for the reasons stated in its August 11, 2003 opinion. The Court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7388

    KENNETH L. SMITH, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LEON
    VISINTAINER, Prison Industries Supervisor;
    HERMAN PEEPELS, Prison Industries Supervisor,
    sued
    in
    their
    individual
    and
    official
    capacities,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-03-795-6-20AK)

    Submitted: January 29, 2004

    Decided:

    February 5, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kenneth L. Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Scott Timothy Justice,


    HORGER, HORGER & JUSTICE, LLC, Orangeburg, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth L. Smith, Jr., appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C.
    1983 (2000) and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we

    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.


    South

    Carolina

    Aug. 11, 2003).

    Dept

    of

    Corr.,

    No.

    We have

    See Smith v.

    CA-03-795-6-20AK

    (D.S.C.

    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 -

    You might also like