Filed: Oct. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1684 THURMOND R. GUESS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHARON Y. HIPPS; STATE FARM INSURANCE; H. RANALD STANLEY; JOHN AUSTIN HOOD; GALLIVANT WHITE BOYD; JOHNSTON COX; WILLIAM P. A. BUYCK, JR.; GEICO INDEMNITY CO.; ELLIOT B. DANIELS; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; SHIRLEY H. RIVERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1684 THURMOND R. GUESS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHARON Y. HIPPS; STATE FARM INSURANCE; H. RANALD STANLEY; JOHN AUSTIN HOOD; GALLIVANT WHITE BOYD; JOHNSTON COX; WILLIAM P. A. BUYCK, JR.; GEICO INDEMNITY CO.; ELLIOT B. DANIELS; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; SHIRLEY H. RIVERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGow..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1684
THURMOND R. GUESS, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHARON Y. HIPPS; STATE FARM INSURANCE; H. RANALD STANLEY;
JOHN AUSTIN HOOD; GALLIVANT WHITE BOYD; JOHNSTON COX;
WILLIAM P. A. BUYCK, JR.; GEICO INDEMNITY CO.; ELLIOT B. DANIELS;
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; SHIRLEY H.
RIVERS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00400-CMC)
Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 17, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thurmond R. Guess, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thurmond R. Guess, Sr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil rights action under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and the district court’s order denying Guess’ Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e) motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Guess v. Hipps, No. 3:19-cv-00400-
CMC (D.S.C. May 23 & June 19, 2019). 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