Filed: Sep. 30, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6510 STANLEY D. LINDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MR. MATTHEW J. FRIEDMAN, Assistant Attorney General; MR. ALLEN WILSON, Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:12-cv-03051-RMG) Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6510 STANLEY D. LINDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MR. MATTHEW J. FRIEDMAN, Assistant Attorney General; MR. ALLEN WILSON, Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:12-cv-03051-RMG) Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6510 STANLEY D. LINDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MR. MATTHEW J. FRIEDMAN, Assistant Attorney General; MR. ALLEN WILSON, Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:12-cv-03051-RMG) Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley D. Linder, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stanley D. Linder appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Linder v. Friedman, No. 1:12-cv-03051- RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 6, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
