Case Name: Don BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUESTEIN, NICHOLS, THOMPSON AND DELGADO, LLC; John S Nichols, (individually); State of South Carolina; J Emory Smith, Jr, (Individually); Katherine Bradacs; Tracie Goodwin; United States of America, The, (United States District Court for the District of South Carolina); United States of America, The, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-16
Citations: 668 F. App'x 541
Docket Number: No. 16-1626
Parties: Don BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUESTEIN, NICHOLS, THOMPSON AND DELGADO, LLC; John S Nichols, (individually); State of South Carolina; J Emory Smith, Jr, (Individually); Katherine Bradacs; Tracie Goodwin; United States of America, The, (United States District Court for the District of South Carolina); United States of America, The, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
Don BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUESTEIN, NICHOLS, THOMPSON AND DELGADO, LLC; John S Nichols, (individually); State of South Carolina; J Emory Smith, Jr, (Individually); Katherine Bradacs; Tracie Goodwin; United States of America, The, (United States District Court for the District of South Carolina); United States of America, The, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-1626
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 13, 2016
Decided: September 16, 2016
Don Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Don Boyd appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Boyd's civil complaint against Defendants. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. Boyd v. Blue-stein, Nichols, Thompson & Delgado, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-04791-JFA, 2016 WL 1258326 (D.S.C. Mar. 81, 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.
AFFIRMED