Filed: Sep. 24, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1693 NATHANIEL HAMPTON JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GRANTHAM & PROPERTIES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (4:19-cv-00779-JMC) Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Hampton Jone
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1693 NATHANIEL HAMPTON JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GRANTHAM & PROPERTIES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (4:19-cv-00779-JMC) Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Hampton Jones..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1693 NATHANIEL HAMPTON JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GRANTHAM & PROPERTIES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (4:19-cv-00779-JMC) Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Hampton Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Hampton Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding his civil action to the Florence County Court of Common Pleas. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Grantham & Props., No. 4:19-cv-00779-JMC (D.S.C. June 12, 2020). 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
