Filed: May 26, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1181 DAVID J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LARRY W. PROPES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:09-cv-03050-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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1181 DAVID J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LARRY W. PROPES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:09-cv-03050-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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1181 DAVID J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LARRY W. PROPES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:09-cv-03050-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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, as modified, dismissing Washington’s complaint without prejudice and denying his motion for judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v. Propes, No. 4:09-cv-03050-RBH (D.S.C. Jan. 21, 2010). 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
