Filed: Nov. 22, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7292 AGHA NAVID GUL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICHLAND COUNTY COURT, Columbia, South Carolina, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-04-720-4-26BH) Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: November 22, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Agha N
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7292 AGHA NAVID GUL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICHLAND COUNTY COURT, Columbia, South Carolina, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-04-720-4-26BH) Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: November 22, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Agha Na..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7292 AGHA NAVID GUL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICHLAND COUNTY COURT, Columbia, South Carolina, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-04-720-4-26BH) Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: November 22, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Agha Navid Gul, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Agha Navid Gul appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his civil action against the Richland County Court. We grant Gul’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Gul v. Richland County, No. CA-04-720-4-26BH (D.S.C. June 7, 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 -
