Franklin Smith v. Corporal Baldwin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00033-MSD-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998878903]. Mailed to: Franklin Smith. [12-6845]

Appeal: 12-6845

Doc: 16

Filed: 06/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6845

FRANKLIN C. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORPORAL BALDWIN, corporal-morning shift (8:00 to 6:00
p.m.); MR. WILLIAMS, Classification Officer, Bankers hours;
MR. STEWART, Counselor and Classification Officer, Bankers
hours; RODNEY L. JACKSON; LT. STEVEN P. GALLAGHER; SERGEANT
SMITH, Sergeant at Norfolk City Jail; CAPTAIN BACON, Captain
at Norfolk City Jail; CAPTAIN MOORE, Captain at Norfolk City
Jail; CORPORAL MCCARTHY, Corporal at Norfolk City Jail;
DEPUTY WILLOUGHBY, Deputy at Norfolk City Jail; MS. GREEN,
Mental Health Dept.; MR. GULTEREZ, Mental Health Dept.;
DEPUTY INVENTO, Deputy; UNKNOWN DEPUTY WITH RIFLE, Deputy,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
ROBERT J. MCCABE, Sheriff over the Norfolk City Jail,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00033-MSD-DEM)

Submitted:

June 14, 2012

Decided:

June 20, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 12-6845

Doc: 16

Filed: 06/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franklin C. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN,
CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-6845

Doc: 16

Filed: 06/20/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Franklin C. Smith appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
have

reviewed

the

record

Accordingly,

although

we

pauperis,

affirm

court.

we

grant
the

find

no

reversible

leave

to

proceed

reasons

stated

by

error.

in

the

forma

district

Smith v. Baldwin, No. 2:10-cv-00033-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va.

Apr. 26, 2012).
facts

for

and

We

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3