Filed: Jun. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6124 LARRY DANNELLE SAMPSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAMUEL B. GLOVER, Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:08-cv-03623-DCN) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6124 LARRY DANNELLE SAMPSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAMUEL B. GLOVER, Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:08-cv-03623-DCN) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6124 LARRY DANNELLE SAMPSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAMUEL B. GLOVER, Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:08-cv-03623-DCN) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Dannelle Sampson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Dannelle Sampson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 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. Sampson v. Glover, No. 0:08-cv-03623-DCN (D.S.C. Dec. 30, 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
