Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Goodman v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Steven Wayne Goodman v. Vernon Smith et al. affirming the district court's granting of summary judgment to the defendants and denial of Goodman's Rule 56(f) motion for a discovery continuance. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the decision of the district court for the reasons stated in its order. The court also granted Goodman's motion to exceed the page limit and denied his other motions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-01-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6820

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Steven Wayne Goodman v. Vernon Smith et al. affirming the district court's granting of summary judgment to the defendants and denial of Goodman's Rule 56(f) motion for a discovery continuance. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the decision of the district court for the reasons stated in its order. The court also granted Goodman's motion to exceed the page limit and denied his other motions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    9 views3 pages

    Goodman v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2005)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Steven Wayne Goodman v. Vernon Smith et al. affirming the district court's granting of summary judgment to the defendants and denial of Goodman's Rule 56(f) motion for a discovery continuance. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the decision of the district court for the reasons stated in its order. The court also granted Goodman's motion to exceed the page limit and denied his other motions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-6820

    STEVEN WAYNE GOODMAN,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    VERNON SMITH, Doctor; LONNIE SAUNDERS; ROB
    BYRD; DEBORAH SWISHER; STEVE HOLLAR, Assistant
    Warden of Programs at ACC; PAMELA A. SARGENT,
    Assistant
    Attorney
    General
    for
    the
    Commonwealth; CAPTAIN MASSEY, ACC; LIEUTENANT
    DAWSON, ACC; LIEUTENANT BOYER, ACC; MR.
    DAVENPORT, Counselor at ACC; MR. PETERS,
    Inmate Hearing Officer of ACC; PHYLLIS BIRD,
    Director of the ACC Law Library,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    ROB MARSH; JOHN DOE, I; JOHN DOE, II; JANE
    DOE; UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA MEDICAL CENTER,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-00-986-7)

    Submitted:

    January 10, 2005

    Decided:

    January 26, 2005

    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Steven Wayne Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Steven Wayne Goodman appeals the district courts order
    granting summary judgment to defendants and denying Goodmans Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 56(f) motion for a discovery continuance.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
    affirm

    for

    the

    reasons

    stated

    by

    the

    We have

    Accordingly, we

    district

    court.

    See

    Goodman v. Smith, No. CA-00-986-7 (W.D. Va. filed Mar. 26, 2004 &
    entered Mar. 29, 2004).

    We grant Goodmans motion to exceed the

    page limitation and deny his motions to remand, for consolidation,


    and for an informal briefing schedule.

    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 -

    You might also like