Filed: Apr. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6095 SHAWNDELL MONTE MCFARLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCOTT S. HARRIS; REDMOND K. BARNES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-03215-CMC) Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6095 SHAWNDELL MONTE MCFARLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCOTT S. HARRIS; REDMOND K. BARNES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-03215-CMC) Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6095
SHAWNDELL MONTE MCFARLIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SCOTT S. HARRIS; REDMOND K. BARNES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-03215-CMC)
Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shawndell Monte McFarlin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shawndell Monte McFarlin appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint under 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. McFarlin v. Harris,
No. 2:17-cv-03215-CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 16, 2018). 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