Wesley Smith, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00881-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998638994]. Mailed to: Wesley Edward Smith, III. [11-1446]

Appeal: 11-1446

Document: 15

Date Filed: 07/25/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1446

WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA GENERAL REGISTRAR OFFICE;
GOVERNOR BOB MCDONALD; TIM KAINE; KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II;
CATHERINE CROOKS-HILL; ROBERT A. DYBING; J. KIRK COURCEY
SHOWALTER,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00881-REP)

Submitted:

July 21, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

July 25, 2011

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Stephen Michael
Hall, Sydney Edmund Rab, Assistant Attorneys General, Richmond,
Virginia; Robert R. Musick, THOMPSON MCMULLAN, PC, Richmond,
Virginia; Alexander Francuzenko, COOK, KITTS & FRANCUZENKO,
PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1446

Document: 15

Date Filed: 07/25/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Wesley Edward Smith, III, appeals the district court’s
orders dismissing his civil action, imposing a monetary sanction
against him, and enjoining him from filing further actions in
that court.

Smith’s informal appellate brief does not address

the monetary sanction, the filing injunction, or the district
court’s bases for dismissing the complaint.
deem these issues abandoned.

Accordingly, we

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Wahi v.

Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir.
2009).

We therefore affirm the district court’s orders.

Smith

v. Virginia, No. 3:10-cv-00881-REP (E.D. Va. Apr. 8, 2011).
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2