Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
12-6845•Franklin C. Smith v. Corporal Baldwin, corporal-morning shift (8:00 to 6:00 p.m.)
12-6845Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit20.06.2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6845
FRANKLIN C. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORPORAL BALDWIN, corporal-morning shift (8:00 to 6:00
p.m.); MR. WILLIAMS, Classification Officer, Bankers hours;
MR. STEWART, Counselor and Classification Officer, Bankers
hours; RODNEY L. JACKSON; LT. STEVEN P. GALLAGHER; SERGEANT
SMITH, Sergeant at Norfolk City Jail; CAPTAIN BACON, Captain
at Norfolk City Jail; CAPTAIN MOORE, Captain at Norfolk City
Jail; CORPORAL MCCARTHY, Corporal at Norfolk City Jail;
DEPUTY WILLOUGHBY, Deputy at Norfolk City Jail; MS. GREEN,
Mental Health Dept.; MR. GULTEREZ, Mental Health Dept.;
DEPUTY INVENTO, Deputy; UNKNOWN DEPUTY WITH RIFLE, Deputy,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
ROBERT J. MCCABE, Sheriff over the Norfolk City Jail,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00033-MSD-DEM)
Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 20, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Franklin C. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN,
CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Franklin C. Smith appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Smith v. Baldwin, No. 2:10-cv-00033-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va.
Apr. 26, 2012). 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 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.