Filed: Nov. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7175 WILLIAM E. MANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANNA CASH, Agent in Charge; SUMMER HAYES, Agent; BOBBY HENDERSON, Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-99-1364-6-19AK) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7175 WILLIAM E. MANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANNA CASH, Agent in Charge; SUMMER HAYES, Agent; BOBBY HENDERSON, Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-99-1364-6-19AK) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7175 WILLIAM E. MANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANNA CASH, Agent in Charge; SUMMER HAYES, Agent; BOBBY HENDERSON, Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-99-1364-6-19AK) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William E. Mann, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William E. Mann appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) com- plaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mann v. Cash, No. CA-99-1364-6-19AK (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 1999); see also 4th Cir. R. 34(b). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
