Filed: Nov. 19, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1766 GLENNIE FULMORE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary Department of the Navy Agency, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00075-PMD) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1766 GLENNIE FULMORE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary Department of the Navy Agency, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00075-PMD) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1766 GLENNIE FULMORE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary Department of the Navy Agency, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00075-PMD) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glennie Fulmore, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Glennie Fulmore appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Fulmore v. England, No. 2:09-cv-00075-PMD (D.S.C. June 10, 2009). 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
