Filed: Aug. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1549 CURLEE SHERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-04-892-5) Submitted: August 9, 2004 Decided: August 20, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curlee Sherman, Appellant Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1549 CURLEE SHERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-04-892-5) Submitted: August 9, 2004 Decided: August 20, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curlee Sherman, Appellant Pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1549 CURLEE SHERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-04-892-5) Submitted: August 9, 2004 Decided: August 20, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curlee Sherman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Curlee Sherman appeals the district court’s judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s order that dismissed his complaint pursuant to a previously entered prefiling review order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sherman v. Parks and Recreation Dep’t, No. CA-04-892-5 (D.S.C. Apr. 28, 2004). 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 -
