Filed: Aug. 31, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1552 NATHANIEL MAGWOOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JENNIFER HABERSTADT, City of Charleston Police Dept.; THOMAS CONSTANZA, Charleston County Sheriff Dept., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:14-cv-03972-DCN) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1552 NATHANIEL MAGWOOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JENNIFER HABERSTADT, City of Charleston Police Dept.; THOMAS CONSTANZA, Charleston County Sheriff Dept., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:14-cv-03972-DCN) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1552 NATHANIEL MAGWOOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JENNIFER HABERSTADT, City of Charleston Police Dept.; THOMAS CONSTANZA, Charleston County Sheriff Dept., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:14-cv-03972-DCN) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Magwood, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Magwood appeals the district court’s order and judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing his civil rights complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Magwood v. Haberstadt, No. 2:14-cv-03972-DCN (D.S.C. May 7, 2015). 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
