Filed: Apr. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1002 TERRENCE ANTHONY WRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PORTIA CATRELL WRAY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:11-cv-03443-RBH) Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013 Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Antho
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1002 TERRENCE ANTHONY WRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PORTIA CATRELL WRAY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:11-cv-03443-RBH) Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013 Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Anthon..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1002 TERRENCE ANTHONY WRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PORTIA CATRELL WRAY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:11-cv-03443-RBH) Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013 Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Anthony Wray, Appellant Pro Se. Portia Catrell Wray, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrence Anthony Wray appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for failure to prosecute. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wray v. Wray, No. 4:11-cv-03443-RBH (D.S.C. Dec. 21, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
