Filed: Feb. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2206 JAMAAL GITTENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 15-2294 JAMAAL GITTENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia and Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:15-cv-02841-MGL; 6:15-cv-03108-MGL) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2206 JAMAAL GITTENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 15-2294 JAMAAL GITTENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia and Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:15-cv-02841-MGL; 6:15-cv-03108-MGL) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 20..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2206
JAMAAL GITTENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-2294
JAMAAL GITTENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia and Greenville. Mary G. Lewis,
District Judge. (3:15-cv-02841-MGL; 6:15-cv-03108-MGL)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamaal Gittens, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jamaal Gittens appeals the district court’s orders accepting
the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaints. We have reviewed the
records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Gittens v. South
Carolina, No. 3:15-cv-02841-MGL (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2015); Gittens
v. South Carolina, No. 6:15-cv-03108-MGL (D.S.C. Oct. 8, 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
3