Nathanael Reynolds v. State of South Carolina


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:17-cv-00298-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000166671].. [17-6663, 17-6759]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6663 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/03/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6663 NATHANAEL LENARD REYNOLDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WILLIAMSBURG COUNTY THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Defendants - Appellees. No. 17-6759 NATHANAEL L. REYNOLDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; COUNTY OF CHARLESTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:17-cv-00298-BHH; 2:17-cv-00681BHH) Appeal: 17-6663 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/03/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathanael Lenard Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 17-6663 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/03/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Nathanael Lenard Reynolds appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012), and denying his motion for reconsideration. * We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reynolds v. South Carolina, Nos. 4:17-cv-00298-BHH; 2:17-cv-00681-BHH (D.S.C. Apr. 18, 2017; May 16, 2017; June 7, 2017). 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 * Reynolds moved for reconsideration in only one of the two cases. 3

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?