Filed: May 16, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1266 NATHANIEL HUNTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANNA MAE DICKSON, sued as Estate of Anna Mae Dickson, MARY K. GIST, sued as Estate of Mary K. Gist, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-99-3-17BD) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1266 NATHANIEL HUNTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANNA MAE DICKSON, sued as Estate of Anna Mae Dickson, MARY K. GIST, sued as Estate of Mary K. Gist, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-99-3-17BD) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1266 NATHANIEL HUNTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANNA MAE DICKSON, sued as Estate of Anna Mae Dickson, MARY K. GIST, sued as Estate of Mary K. Gist, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-99-3-17BD) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Hunter appeals from district court’s orders: (1) accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss without prejudice his action in which he challenges a state court ejectment proceeding, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hunter v. Dickson, No. CA-00-99-3-17BD (D.S.C. Feb. 1 & Feb. 14, 2000). 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
