Filed: Feb. 24, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1745 JOE HILLIARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANN VENEMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture; KENNETH RENTIERS, State Executive Director, Farm Service Agency; HAYNES CULLER, Orangeburg County Farm Service Agency, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-04-22431-5) Submitted: February 8
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1745 JOE HILLIARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANN VENEMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture; KENNETH RENTIERS, State Executive Director, Farm Service Agency; HAYNES CULLER, Orangeburg County Farm Service Agency, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-04-22431-5) Submitted: February 8,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1745
JOE HILLIARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ANN VENEMAN, Secretary, United States
Department of Agriculture; KENNETH RENTIERS,
State Executive Director, Farm Service Agency;
HAYNES CULLER, Orangeburg County Farm Service
Agency,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CA-04-22431-5)
Submitted: February 8, 2006 Decided: February 24, 2006
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joe Hilliard, Appellant Pro Se. Christie Newman, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joe Hilliard appeals the district court's order
dismissing his civil action for failure to comply with the court’s
order. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of
discretion. See Ballard v. Carlson,
882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Hilliard v. Veneman, No. CA-04-22431-5 (D.S.C. June 14, 2005). 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 -