Filed: Aug. 30, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6454 GARY L. WISE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (6:09-cv-00901-MBS) Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary L. Wise, Appellant Pro Se. Unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6454 GARY L. WISE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (6:09-cv-00901-MBS) Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary L. Wise, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6454
GARY L. WISE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (6:09-cv-00901-MBS)
Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary L. Wise, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary L. Wise appeals the district court's order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his
Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (2006) action
against the United States after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2006)
review. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
Wise v. United States, No. 6:09-cv-00901-MBS (D.S.C.
Dec. 18, 2009). 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