Filed: Mar. 10, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6874 ARTHUR LEE MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STAFF, at Columbia Care Center; NFN FISHER, Security Guard at Columbia Care Center; NFN SCOTT, Doctor at Columbia Care Center; SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA; PROBATE COURT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-725-2-10) Submitted: Febr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6874 ARTHUR LEE MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STAFF, at Columbia Care Center; NFN FISHER, Security Guard at Columbia Care Center; NFN SCOTT, Doctor at Columbia Care Center; SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA; PROBATE COURT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-725-2-10) Submitted: Febru..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6874 ARTHUR LEE MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STAFF, at Columbia Care Center; NFN FISHER, Security Guard at Columbia Care Center; NFN SCOTT, Doctor at Columbia Care Center; SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA; PROBATE COURT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-725-2-10) Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: March 10, 2004 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Miller appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Miller v. Staff, No. CA-03-725-2-10 (D.S.C. Apr. 23, 2003). 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 -