Smith v. Taylor

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Smith v. Taylor

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6717

JOHNATHAN LEE X SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

F. STUART TAYLOR; C. AILSTOCK; PERRY; A. V. STONE; G. S. THOMPSON; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; GEORGE F. ALLEN, Governor; JERRY W. KILGORE; BRUCE MORRIS; RICHARD W. CROSSEN, JR.; JOHN WILLIAM WADE, JR.; SANDRA L. COMBS; WINNIE DIXON; JOSEPH F. LEWIS; LINDA R. PITMAN; LOU ANN WHITE; DONALD GUILLORY; LAYTON LESTER; SUSAN CARSON; D. WILMOUTH; DIANE SPENCER; J. P. JONES; MARCIA A. ORNELAS; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-6719

JOHNATHAN LEE X SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JACK K. HAYES; SERGEANT KEEVIL; DARLENE M. BEST; AARON AKA EXXON SERVICE STATION 5818 JEFFERSON AVENUE NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA 23607; NEWPORT NEWS POLICE DEPARTMENT; VIRGINIA STATE POLICE,

Defendants - Appellees. 2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge; David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-1032-R, CA-95-672)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnathan Lee X Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's orders granting

his motion to dismiss and dismissing without prejudice these

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(1994) actions. We have reviewed the records and the magistrate judge's opinions and find no reversible error. Accord-

ingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the

appeals on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Smith v. Taylor, No. CA-95-1032-R, Smith v. Hayes, No. CA-95-672 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2 &

11, 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.

DISMISSED

3 4

Reference

Status
Unpublished