Filed: Oct. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1721 ROBERT JOHN SCHIEBLE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION; DORCHESTER COUNTY JUDICIARY COMMISSION; DORCHESTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-2930-2-18RB) Submitted: September 18, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1721 ROBERT JOHN SCHIEBLE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION; DORCHESTER COUNTY JUDICIARY COMMISSION; DORCHESTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-2930-2-18RB) Submitted: September 18, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001 ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1721 ROBERT JOHN SCHIEBLE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION; DORCHESTER COUNTY JUDICIARY COMMISSION; DORCHESTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-2930-2-18RB) Submitted: September 18, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001 Before WILKINS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert John Schieble, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert John Schieble, Jr. appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing with- out prejudice his civil action. Because Schieble’s informal brief failed to raise any specific challenge to the district court’s order, we find that he has waived all issues pertaining to that order. See 4th Cir. Local R. 34(b). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2