Filed: Aug. 08, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6543 JABBAR JOMO STRAWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WIS NEWS; TAMARA KING; CHANTELLE JANELLE; THE PRODUCER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (4:07-cv-01681-HFF) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ja
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6543 JABBAR JOMO STRAWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WIS NEWS; TAMARA KING; CHANTELLE JANELLE; THE PRODUCER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (4:07-cv-01681-HFF) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jab..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6543 JABBAR JOMO STRAWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WIS NEWS; TAMARA KING; CHANTELLE JANELLE; THE PRODUCER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (4:07-cv-01681-HFF) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jabbar Jomo Straws, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jabbar Jomo Straws appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Straws v. WIS News, No. 4:07-cv-01681-HFF (D.S.C. March 31, 2008). 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 -
