Filed: Sep. 30, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1624 LAUNEIL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Administrator Lisa Jackson; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; ABITIBI BOWATER CORPORATION; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (7:10-cv-00968-RBH) Submitted:
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1624 LAUNEIL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Administrator Lisa Jackson; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; ABITIBI BOWATER CORPORATION; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (7:10-cv-00968-RBH) Submitted: ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1624 LAUNEIL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Administrator Lisa Jackson; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; ABITIBI BOWATER CORPORATION; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (7:10-cv-00968-RBH) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: September 30, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Launeil Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Launeil Sanders appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complain without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Sanders v. United States, No. 7:10-cv-00968-RBH (D.S.C. June 1, 2010). 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
