Filed: Feb. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7694 ANTHONY FRED MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER C. BLINKLEY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:13-cv-01568-DCN) Submitted: February 19, 2014 Decided: February 21, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Fred Martin, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7694 ANTHONY FRED MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER C. BLINKLEY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:13-cv-01568-DCN) Submitted: February 19, 2014 Decided: February 21, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Fred Martin, Appellant Pro S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7694
ANTHONY FRED MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER C. BLINKLEY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(4:13-cv-01568-DCN)
Submitted: February 19, 2014 Decided: February 21, 2014
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Fred Martin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Fred Martin 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) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Martin v. Blinkley, No. 4:13-cv-01568-
DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 20, 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