Christopher Odom v. State of South Carolina ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2121
CHRISTOPHER A. ODOM,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JASON KING, Public Defender;
CHARLES PATRICK, Solicitor; JUDGE MULLINS; SOUTH CAROLINA
BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD; JUDGE JAMES GOSNELL; MAYOR JOE
RILEY, City of Charleston; GOVERNOR NIKKI HALEY; MAYOR
KEITH SUMNEY, North Charleston; JUDGE GARFINKEL; JUDGE
KRISTI HARRINGTON; JUDGE JEFFERSON; STATE ATTORNEY ALAN
WILSON; P.D. ASHLEY PENNINGTON; PROSECUTOR SCARLETT WILSON;
MICHAEL GRANT; MUSC; DOLLAR TREE; CARTA BUS CO.; CARTA BUS
WHEELCHAIR LIFT MANUFACTURER; CARTA BUS INSURER; CARTA BUS
DRIVER; OFFICER CHERRY, of Charleston Police Dep't; OFFICER
HO, of Charleston Police Dep't; UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICER,
with Officer Ho on Dec. 16, 2014; OFFICER TUGYA, of
Charleston Police Dep't; CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY
OF NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF CHARLESTON
TAXPAYERS; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TAXPAYERS; COUNTY OF
CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS;
FNU LNU, Female Victim Advocate; DR. STEPHANIE MONTGOMERY;
CHAMPUS, Insurer; FNU LNU, Doctors from MUSC who approved
placement of Plaintiff in SCDMH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard M. Gergel, District
Judge. (5:16-cv-02674-RMG)
Submitted: January 27, 2017 Decided: February 16, 2017
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher A. Odom appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissing
Odom’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012), and imposing a
pre-filing injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in
formal pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by
the district court. Odom v. South Carolina, No. 5:16-cv-02674-
RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 2016). 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.
DISMISSED
3