Filed: May 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2498 REGINALD D. EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIME WARNER CABLE, INCORPORATED; TIME WARNER CABLE, South Carolina Division, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-04-1003-3-17BC) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2498 REGINALD D. EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIME WARNER CABLE, INCORPORATED; TIME WARNER CABLE, South Carolina Division, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-04-1003-3-17BC) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2498 REGINALD D. EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIME WARNER CABLE, INCORPORATED; TIME WARNER CABLE, South Carolina Division, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-04-1003-3-17BC) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Rogers Ellerbe, III, ROBINSON, MCFADDEN & MOORE, PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Reginald D. Evans appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 532 (2000) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Evans v. Time Warner Cable, No. CA-04-1003-3-17BC (D.S.C. filed Nov. 4, 2004 & entered Nov. 5, 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 -