Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

James Robinson v. Karen Fryar, 13-6992 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-6992 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6992 JAMES ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KAREN FRYAR, Solicitor; VANESSA COOPER, Solicitor; WARREN GIESE, Solicitor; JOHN BREEDEN, JR., Judge; INVESTIGATOR G. BURNS, CPD; DONNA STROM, Judge Family Court, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cv-03505-JFA) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided:
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6992 JAMES ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KAREN FRYAR, Solicitor; VANESSA COOPER, Solicitor; WARREN GIESE, Solicitor; JOHN BREEDEN, JR., Judge; INVESTIGATOR G. BURNS, CPD; DONNA STROM, Judge Family Court, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cv-03505-JFA) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Robinson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Robinson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and a subsequent order denying Robinson’s motion to amend and/or for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Robinson v. Fryar, No. 3:12-cv-03505-JFA (D.S.C. filed Apr. 9, 2013 & entered Apr. 10, 2013; June 4, 2013). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer