Filed: Feb. 18, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1467 JOE L. WITHERSPOON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Marie B. Robinson, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JEFFORDS AGENCY, INCORPORATED; ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1831-4-12BH) Submitted: January 5, 2005 Decided: February 18, 2005 Before WILKINSON, TRA
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1467 JOE L. WITHERSPOON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Marie B. Robinson, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JEFFORDS AGENCY, INCORPORATED; ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1831-4-12BH) Submitted: January 5, 2005 Decided: February 18, 2005 Before WILKINSON, TRAX..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1467
JOE L. WITHERSPOON, Personal Representative of
the Estate of Marie B. Robinson,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JEFFORDS AGENCY, INCORPORATED; ALLSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-1831-4-12BH)
Submitted: January 5, 2005 Decided: February 18, 2005
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joe L. Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se. Jon René Josey, TURNER,
PADGETT, GRAHAM & LANEY, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joe L. Witherspoon, as personal representative of the
Estate of Marie B. Robinson, appeals the district court’s order
dismissing Witherspoon’s civil action without prejudice for failure
to comply with the magistrate judge’s order to retain counsel. We
have reviewed the record as supplemented and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Witherspoon v. Jeffords Agency, Inc., No.
CA-02-1831-4-12BH (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2003); see also Shepherd v.
Wellman,
313 F.3d 963, 970-71 (6th Cir. 2002); Pridgen v. Andresen,
113 F.3d 391, 393 (2d Cir. 1997). 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 -