Case ID: f-appx_645/html/0288-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

King GRANT-DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shane FORTUNE; Scott Bliemeister; Jerome Burgess; Greg Ley, of Wal-Mart, Charleston, South Carolina District; Wal-Mart, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-2598.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 19, 2016.
    Decided: April 21, 2016.
    
      King Grant-Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

King Grant-Davis appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Grant-Davis v. Fortune, No. 2:15-cv-04211-PMD (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2015). We decline to consider the arguments Grant-Davis raises for the first time on appeal. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). 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.