Christopher Odom v. Nikki Haley
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999633235-2]. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-01951-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999727290]. Mailed to: Christopher Odom. [15-7101]
Appeal: 15-7101
Doc: 26
Filed: 12/30/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7101
CHRISTOPHER ODOM,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
GOVERNOR NIKKI HALEY; MAYOR JOE RILEY, City of Charleston;
MAYOR KEITH SUMNEY, North Charleston; JUDGE GARFINKEL;
JUDGE KRISTI HARRINGTON; JUDGE JEFFERSON; STATE ATTORNEY
ALAN WILSON; PD ASHLEY PENNINGTON; PROSECUTOR SCARLET
WILSON; MICHAEL GRANT; DOLLAR TREE; MUSC; DR. STEPHANIE
MONTGOMERY; CARTA BUS CO.; CARTA BUS WHEELCHAIR LIFT
MANUFACTURER; CARTA BUS INSURER; CARTA BUS DRIVER JOHN;
OFFICER CHERRY, of Charleston Police Department; OFFICER
HO,
of Charleston
Police
Department;
UNKNOWN
POLICE
OFFICER, with Officer Ho on December 16, 2014; OFFICER
TUGYA, of Charleston Police Department on October 29, 2012;
CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON
POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; SOUTH
CAROLINA STATE TAXPAYERS; COUNTY OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS;
CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; CHAMPUS, Insurer;
SHERIFF AL CANNON; FNU LNU, Female Victim Advocate; FNU
LNU, Doctors from MUSC who approved placement of Plaintiff
in SCDMH; OFFICER RICHARDSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
Richard M. Gergel, District
Judge. (5:15-cv-01951-RMG)
Submitted:
November 23, 2015
Decided:
December 30, 2015
Appeal: 15-7101
Doc: 26
Filed: 12/30/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher A. Odom. Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 15-7101
Doc: 26
Filed: 12/30/2015
Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Christopher A. Odom appeals from the district court’s order
adopting in part the report and recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing Odom’s complaint for failure to state a
claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A (2012).
The court
dismissed certain counts of the complaint with prejudice and
other counts without prejudice.
The district court’s order also
stated that the dismissal should count as a strike for purposes
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012).
Odom
did
not
allege,
in
either
his
objections
to
the
magistrate judge’s report or his informal brief on appeal, any
specific errors in the district court’s reasoning that Odom’s
complaint failed to state a claim.
Accordingly, he has waived
consideration of the district court’s dismissal.
See 4th Cir.
R. 34(b) (failure to raise claim in informal brief); Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-87 (4th Cir. 1985) (failure to file
objections to the magistrate judge’s report).
district
court’s
ruling
that
its
dismissal
was
Regarding the
Odom’s
third
strike under § 1915(g), we note that part of Odom’s complaint
was dismissed without prejudice.
We have held that a dismissal
without prejudice for failure to state a claim does not count as
a strike under § 1915(g).
McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d
391, 396-97 (4th Cir. 2009); see also Tolbert v. Stevenson, 635
F.3d 646, 650-51 (4th Cir. 2011) (holding that, in order to
3
Appeal: 15-7101
Doc: 26
Filed: 12/30/2015
Pg: 4 of 4
count as a strike, entire action must be dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim).
Thus, we hold that the district court’s dismissal was not a
strike, and we modify the district court’s order accordingly.
We
grant
leave
to
proceed
in
forma
pauperis
district court’s dismissal as modified.
and
affirm
the
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 AS MODIFIED
4
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?