Filed: Jan. 28, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7791 BOBBY JOE BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRANDON SCOTT, Investigator; CHRIS BENSEL, Investigator; ABBEVILLE COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-3-633-8-25) Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2004 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7791 BOBBY JOE BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRANDON SCOTT, Investigator; CHRIS BENSEL, Investigator; ABBEVILLE COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-3-633-8-25) Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2004 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7791 BOBBY JOE BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRANDON SCOTT, Investigator; CHRIS BENSEL, Investigator; ABBEVILLE COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-3-633-8-25) Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2004 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Joe Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bobby Joe Brown appeals the district court’s orders and judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, dismissing without prejudice Brown’s civil rights complaint and denying the motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Brown v. Scott, No. CA-3-633-8-25 (D.S.C. Sept. 5 & Oct. 14, 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 -
