Court Opinion

ID: 9372118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 21:00:28.007527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.268378
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6518      Doc: 14         Filed: 02/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6518

        FRANKLIN C. SMITH,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CPL D. N. BEAVERS, Corporal; CPL. UZZLE, Corporal/Intel; D. A. TAYLOR,
        Deputy/Intel; B. F. ROZAS, Deputy/Intel; J. VARGAS, Captain; CPL. DEVO,
        Corporal; CPL. CHRISTIE, Corporal; CPL. BRYANT, Corporal,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:17-cv-00336-MSD-LRL)

        Submitted: January 4, 2023                                   Decided: February 16, 2023

        Before KING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Franklin C. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia
        Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6518         Doc: 14       Filed: 02/16/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Franklin C. Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        action as a sanction for his vexatious litigation practices and denying his motion for recusal.

        We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

        reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Beavers, No. 2:17-cv-00336-MSD-LRL (E.D.

        Va. Apr. 7, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

        are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      2