Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Smith v. Ledford, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Harold Smith filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several county officials which was denied by the district court. Smith appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the case and found no errors in the district court's decision to deny relief. The appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings denying Smith's complaint and motion for reconsideration, concluding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented to the lower court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-10-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-7169

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Harold Smith filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several county officials which was denied by the district court. Smith appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the case and found no errors in the district court's decision to deny relief. The appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings denying Smith's complaint and motion for reconsideration, concluding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented to the lower court.

    Copyright:

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

    Smith v. Ledford, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Harold Smith filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several county officials which was denied by the district court. Smith appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the case and found no errors in the district court's decision to deny relief. The appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings denying Smith's complaint and motion for reconsideration, concluding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented to the lower court.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 06-7169

    HAROLD SMITH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN D. LEDFORD, Sheriff; JAMES HARWOOD,
    Captain; DENNY GOFORTH, Chief Deputy; EDDIE
    RICE, Jail Administrator,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
    District Judge. (1:06-cv-00152)

    Submitted: October 17, 2006

    Decided: October 24, 2006

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Harold Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Harold Smith appeals the district courts orders denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his
    motion for reconsideration.

    We have reviewed the record and find

    no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated


    by

    the

    district

    court.

    Smith

    v.

    Ledford,

    (W.D.N.C. May 22, 2006, June 19, 2006).

    No.

    1:06-cv-00152

    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