Case Name: Carlos KINLAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, and God Sent Transport LLC, Plaintiff, v. LOWES HOME CENTER INC.; Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.; Joseph P. Tobin, M.D.; Jon Hyman, M.D. P.C.; Richard J. Friedman, M.D.; McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC; Brian O'Keefe; Fletcher M. Johnson; Erin L. Hantske, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-18
Citations: 588 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 14-2109
Parties: Carlos KINLAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, and God Sent Transport LLC, Plaintiff, v. LOWES HOME CENTER INC.; Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.; Joseph P. Tobin, M.D.; Jon Hyman, M.D. P.C.; Richard J. Friedman, M.D.; McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC; Brian O’Keefe; Fletcher M. Johnson; Erin L. Hantske, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 588
Pages: 220–220

Head Matter:
Carlos KINLAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, and God Sent Transport LLC, Plaintiff, v. LOWES HOME CENTER INC.; Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.; Joseph P. Tobin, M.D.; Jon Hyman, M.D. P.C.; Richard J. Friedman, M.D.; McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC; Brian O’Keefe; Fletcher M. Johnson; Erin L. Hantske, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-2109.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 16, 2014.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2014.
Carlos Kinlaw, Appellant pro se.
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Kinlaw appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and summarily dismissing his civil action without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kinlaw v. Lowes Home Ctr., Inc., No. 9:14-cv-02815-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 25, 2014). 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.