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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1327 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1327 EVALINA WALLS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DILLON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?