Filed: Mar. 27, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2273 BRYNILDSON BARKSDALE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARROLL ANN OWENS; MAGGIE FRADY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-04-21971-6) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brynildson Barksdal
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2273 BRYNILDSON BARKSDALE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARROLL ANN OWENS; MAGGIE FRADY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-04-21971-6) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brynildson Barksdale..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2273 BRYNILDSON BARKSDALE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARROLL ANN OWENS; MAGGIE FRADY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-04-21971-6) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brynildson Barksdale, Appellant Pro Se. Sherman Brook Fowler, CARTER, SMITH, MERRIAM, ROGERS & TRAXLER, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Brynildson Barksdale appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Barksdale v. Owens, No. CA-04-21971-6 (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 2005). 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 -
