Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Jones v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Steven E. Jones v. William L. Smith et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief on Jones' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The panel reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error, affirming the lower court's ruling based on its reasoning. The panel 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

    You might also like

    Jones v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Steven E. Jones v. William L. Smith et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief on Jones' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The panel reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error, affirming the lower court's ruling based on its reasoning. The panel dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-09-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6337

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Steven E. Jones v. William L. Smith et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief on Jones' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The panel reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error, affirming the lower court's ruling based on its reasoning. The panel 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
    Download as pdf
    11 views2 pages

    Jones v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Steven E. Jones v. William L. Smith et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief on Jones' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The panel reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error, affirming the lower court's ruling based on its reasoning. The panel 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
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-6337

    STEVEN E. JONES,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden; JOHN F. HIMMEL, JR.,
    Classification Case Management; BERNICE ALLEN,
    Classification Supervisor; JOHN LOCKLEAR, Case
    Management Specialist; LARRY SATTERFIELD, SUI,
    Supervisor, in their individual and official
    capacities,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA96-460-S)
    Submitted:

    August 22, 1996

    Decided:

    September 3, 1996

    Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steven E. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed
    the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Jones v. Smith, No. CA-96-460-S (D. Md. Mar. 1, 1996). 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

    You might also like