Smith v. Godwin , 80 F. App'x 818 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1702
JAMES MARSHALL SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RAY GODWIN, individually and in his official
capacity as Acting Commissioner of the
Virginia Department of Social Services;
CAROLYNNE H. STEVENS, individually and in her
official capacity as Director, Divisions of
Licensing Programs; DENYCE BONAPARTE,
individually and in her official capacity as
Licensing Administrator; R. WAYNE WOLFE,
individually and in his official capacity as
Licensing Administrator; MARY ELDREDGE,
individually and in her official capacity as
Licensing Specialist,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CA-03-88-3)
Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: November 10, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold E. Lucas, Jr., Warrenton, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General of Virginia, Judith Williams
Jagdmann, Deputy Attorney General, Edward M. Macon, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, George W. Chabalewski, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Allen T. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Marshall Smith appeals the district court’s orders
granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his racial discrimination
action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983 (2000), Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7 (2000), and the
Virginia Constitution and denying his motion for reconsideration.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Smith v. Godwin, No. CA-03-88-3 (E.D. Va. May 5, 2003; May 23,
2003). 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
2