Filed: Dec. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6825 DAWUD RAHIM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:16-cv-02440-JMC) Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 21, 2017 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6825 DAWUD RAHIM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:16-cv-02440-JMC) Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 21, 2017 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6825
DAWUD RAHIM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND
PARDON SERVICES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:16-cv-02440-JMC)
Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 21, 2017
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dawud Rahim, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dawud Rahim appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rahim v. SC Dep’t of
Prob., No. 0:16-cv-02440-JMC (D.S.C. June 7, 2017). We deny Rahim’s motion to
amend. 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