Filed: Jun. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6331 RON SANTA MCCRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEBRA K. LITTLEJOHN; CAMERON L. MARSHALL; D. ASHLEY PENNINGTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (2:11-cv-02558-TLW) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ron
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6331 RON SANTA MCCRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEBRA K. LITTLEJOHN; CAMERON L. MARSHALL; D. ASHLEY PENNINGTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (2:11-cv-02558-TLW) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ron S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6331 RON SANTA MCCRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEBRA K. LITTLEJOHN; CAMERON L. MARSHALL; D. ASHLEY PENNINGTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (2:11-cv-02558-TLW) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ron Santa McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ron Santa McCray appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice 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. McCray v. Littlejohn, No. 2:11-cv-02558-TLW (D.S.C. Jan. 25, 2012). 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
