Filed: Nov. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2127 VALERIE DONNELLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. MCFERRIN SMITH, III, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (8:15-cv-00737-BHH) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Valerie Donnelly, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2127 VALERIE DONNELLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. MCFERRIN SMITH, III, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (8:15-cv-00737-BHH) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Valerie Donnelly, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2127
VALERIE DONNELLY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
C. MCFERRIN SMITH, III,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (8:15-cv-00737-BHH)
Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Valerie Donnelly, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Valerie Donnelly appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Donnelly v. Smith, No.
8:15-cv-00737-BHH (D.S.C. Aug. 26, 2015). 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