Case Name: Nadine CORNELIUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel HOWELL; The City of Columbia; County of Richland; Nicole Anderson; Edward Anderson; Camille Anderson; Joshua Anderson; Fnu Lnu; Cleophur Morris, Mr. and Mrs. and Daughter; Kenneth LNU; Mrs. Barbara Cornelius Hicks; Ms. Melvin Cornelius; Fnu Lnu; Carolyn Hill, and light skinned boyfriend; Charles Geiger; Mrs. Susan Geiger; Tyrone Geiger; Cricket Geiger, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-22
Citations: 251 F. App'x 246
Docket Number: No. 07-1514
Parties: Nadine CORNELIUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel HOWELL; The City of Columbia; County of Richland; Nicole Anderson; Edward Anderson; Camille Anderson; Joshua Anderson; Fnu Lnu; Cleophur Morris, Mr. and Mrs. and Daughter; Kenneth LNU; Mrs. Barbara Cornelius Hicks; Ms. Melvin Cornelius; Fnu Lnu; Carolyn Hill, and light skinned boyfriend; Charles Geiger; Mrs. Susan Geiger; Tyrone Geiger; Cricket Geiger, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 246–246

Head Matter:
Nadine CORNELIUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel HOWELL; The City of Columbia; County of Richland; Nicole Anderson; Edward Anderson; Camille Anderson; Joshua Anderson; Fnu Lnu; Cleophur Morris, Mr. and Mrs. and Daughter; Kenneth LNU; Mrs. Barbara Cornelius Hicks; Ms. Melvin Cornelius; Fnu Lnu; Carolyn Hill, and light skinned boyfriend; Charles Geiger; Mrs. Susan Geiger; Tyrone Geiger; Cricket Geiger, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-1514.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 22, 2007.
Nadine Cornelius, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nadine Cornelius appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cornelius v. Howell, No. 3:06-cv-03387-MBS (D.S.C. Jan. 31, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.