Case Name: Nathanael Lenard REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Williamsburg County Third Judicial Circuit, Defendants-Appellees; Nathanael L. Reynolds, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of South Carolina; County of Charleston, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 103
Docket Number: No. 17-6663, No. 17-6759
Parties: Nathanael Lenard REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Williamsburg County Third Judicial Circuit, Defendants-Appellees. Nathanael L. Reynolds, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of South Carolina; County of Charleston, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 103–103

Head Matter:
Nathanael Lenard REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Williamsburg County Third Judicial Circuit, Defendants-Appellees. Nathanael L. Reynolds, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of South Carolina; County of Charleston, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-6663, No. 17-6759
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 28, 2017
Decided: October 3, 2017
Nathanael Lenard Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathanael Lenard Reynolds appeals the district court's orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reynolds v. South Carolina, Nos. 4:17-cv-00298-BHH; 2:17-cv-00681-BHH, 2017 WL 1381008, 2017 WL 2115576 (D.S.C. Apr. 18, 2017; May 16, 2017; June 7, 2017). 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
Reynolds moved for reconsideration in only one of the two cases.