Filed: Jun. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6111 FREDERICK L. HOWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ALAN WILSON, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:15-cv-02561-JFA) Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6111 FREDERICK L. HOWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ALAN WILSON, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:15-cv-02561-JFA) Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6111
FREDERICK L. HOWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALAN WILSON, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (4:15-cv-02561-JFA)
Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick L. Howell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frederick L. Howell appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A (2012). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Howell v. Wilson, No. 4:15-cv-
02561-JFA (D.S.C. Nov. 17, 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