Filed: Oct. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1717 CALEB O. ADONGO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THRIFTY CAR RENTAL; DETECTIVE BOWERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-3602-7-13AK) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1717 CALEB O. ADONGO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THRIFTY CAR RENTAL; DETECTIVE BOWERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-3602-7-13AK) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1717 CALEB O. ADONGO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THRIFTY CAR RENTAL; DETECTIVE BOWERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-3602-7-13AK) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Caleb O. Adongo, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Caleb O. Adongo appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint without preju- dice. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the rea- soning of the district court. See Adongo v. Thrifty Car Rental, No. CA-98-3602-7-13AK (D.S.C. May 3, 1999). 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
