Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02121/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02121-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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

Appeal: 16-2121 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/16/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2121 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/16/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 16-2121 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/16/2017 Pg: 3 of 3