Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Odom v. Walmart, 07-6768 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-6768 Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 19, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6768 CHRISTOPHER A. ODOM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WALMART; WALMART INSURANCE POLICY HOLDER; STEPHEN KEY; JUD WOODY; GLEN CHURCHILL; RONNIE COHURST; JUDGE LEAH; ADAM L. HAMPTON; JUANITA RILEY; LINDA F. ARMSTRONG; CLAYTON C. WILLIAMS; JANE P. HANAHAN; PAUL J. MCDERMOTT; FLORINTINE JACINTH; GINA L. ROBERTSON; PAMELA W. NOTO; DOROTHY HAYENES; JANET T. TEMPLE; ANTHONY C. MILLIGAN; BARBARA M. BRANTLEY; SEAN HETHINGTON; WITC
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6768 CHRISTOPHER A. ODOM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WALMART; WALMART INSURANCE POLICY HOLDER; STEPHEN KEY; JUD WOODY; GLEN CHURCHILL; RONNIE COHURST; JUDGE LEAH; ADAM L. HAMPTON; JUANITA RILEY; LINDA F. ARMSTRONG; CLAYTON C. WILLIAMS; JANE P. HANAHAN; PAUL J. MCDERMOTT; FLORINTINE JACINTH; GINA L. ROBERTSON; PAMELA W. NOTO; DOROTHY HAYENES; JANET T. TEMPLE; ANTHONY C. MILLIGAN; BARBARA M. BRANTLEY; SEAN HETHINGTON; WITCOMB, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00247-PMD) Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 19, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher A. Odom appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Odom v. Walmart, No. 2:07-cv-00247-PMD (D.S.C. April 24, 2007). 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer