Filed: Feb. 10, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1964 BARRY GREEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM K. SUTER, Clerk; CLAYTON R. HIGGINS, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-05-1674-3) Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: February 10, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. B
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1964 BARRY GREEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM K. SUTER, Clerk; CLAYTON R. HIGGINS, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-05-1674-3) Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: February 10, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ba..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1964 BARRY GREEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM K. SUTER, Clerk; CLAYTON R. HIGGINS, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-05-1674-3) Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: February 10, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Barry Green, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Green v. Suter, No. CA-05- 1674-3 (D.S.C. Aug. 18, 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 -
