Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07101/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07101-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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: 1 of 4
2

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Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7101 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

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). Regarding the 

district court’s ruling that its dismissal was 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 

Appeal: 15-7101 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/30/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
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 and affirm the 

district court’s dismissal as modified. 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 

Appeal: 15-7101 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/30/2015 Pg: 4 of 4