Filed: Dec. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7270 THERL TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES BROOKS; JEANETTE MCBRIDE; JANE DOES; JOHN DOES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (3:15-cv-01138-RMG) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7270 THERL TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES BROOKS; JEANETTE MCBRIDE; JANE DOES; JOHN DOES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (3:15-cv-01138-RMG) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7270
THERL TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES BROOKS; JEANETTE MCBRIDE; JANE DOES; JOHN DOES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (3:15-cv-01138-RMG)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Therl Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Therl Taylor appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. * We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Taylor v. Brooks, No. 3:15-cv-01138-RMG (D.S.C. July 14,
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
*
We conclude that the district court’s order is final and
appealable. See In re GNC Corp.,
789 F.3d 505, 511 n.3 (4th
Cir. 2015) (discussing standard for determining finality of
order).
2