The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
06-7169•Harold Smith v. JOHN D. LEDFORD, Sheriff
06-7169Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 24, 2006
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Harold Smith appeals the district court’s 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, No. 1:06-cv-00152
(W.D.N.C. May 22, 2006, June 19, 2006). 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.