Evalina Walls v. Dillon County Detention Center
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999571411-2] Originating case number: 4:13-cv-02551-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999645581]. Mailed to: Wallls. [15-1327]
Appeal: 15-1327
Doc: 12
Filed: 08/24/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1327
EVALINA WALLS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DILLON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:13-cv-02551-RBH)
Submitted:
August 20, 2015
Decided:
August 24, 2015
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Evalina Walls, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Wofford Johnson,
Fred Adam Williams, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1327
Doc: 12
Filed: 08/24/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Evalina Walls appeals the district court’s order accepting
the
recommendation
of
the
magistrate
judge
as
modified
and
dismissing Walls’ Title VII sex and retaliation discrimination
claims without prejudice and dismissing the remainder of the
employment discrimination and state law claims with prejudice.
We
have
reviewed
the
record
and
find
no
reversible
error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
Walls v. Dillon Cty. Det. Ctr., No. 4:13-cv-02551-RBH
(D.S.C. Mar. 13, 2015).
pauperis.
legal
before
We grant leave to proceed in forma
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?