Filed: May 26, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1094 DAVID J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOUIS HARRELSON; RICHARD’S TIRE; KENNY DAVIS, Chief; JAMES A. COX, Honorable, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:09-cv-02745-RBH) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1094 DAVID J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOUIS HARRELSON; RICHARD’S TIRE; KENNY DAVIS, Chief; JAMES A. COX, Honorable, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:09-cv-02745-RBH) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1094 DAVID J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOUIS HARRELSON; RICHARD’S TIRE; KENNY DAVIS, Chief; JAMES A. COX, Honorable, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:09-cv-02745-RBH) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David J. Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David J. Washington appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v. Harrelson, No. 4:09-cv-02745-RBH (D.S.C. Jan. 4, 2010). We also deny Washington’s motions for an evidentiary hearing and judgment, and hearing to be heard in open court. 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
