Case Name: Christopher A. ODOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALMART; Walmart Insurance Policy Holder; Stephen Key; Jud Woody; Glen Churchill; Ronnie Cohurst; Judge Leah; Adam L. Hampton; Juanita Riley; Linda F. Armstrong; Clayton C. Williams; Jane P. Hanahan; Paul J. McDermott; Florintine Jacinth; Gina L. Robertson; Pamela W. Noto; Dorothy Hayenes; Janet T. Temple; Anthony C. Milligan; Barbara M. Brantley; Sean Hethington; Witcomb, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-19
Citations: 242 F. App'x 20
Docket Number: No. 07-6768
Parties: Christopher A. ODOM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WALMART; Walmart Insurance Policy Holder; Stephen Key; Jud Woody; Glen Churchill; Ronnie Cohurst; Judge Leah; Adam L. Hampton; Juanita Riley; Linda F. Armstrong; Clayton C. Williams; Jane P. Hanahan; Paul J. McDermott; Florintine Jacinth; Gina L. Robertson; Pamela W. Noto; Dorothy Hayenes; Janet T. Temple; Anthony C. Milligan; Barbara M. Brantley; Sean Hethington; Witcomb, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 242
Pages: 20–21

Head Matter:
Christopher A. ODOM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WALMART; Walmart Insurance Policy Holder; Stephen Key; Jud Woody; Glen Churchill; Ronnie Cohurst; Judge Leah; Adam L. Hampton; Juanita Riley; Linda F. Armstrong; Clayton C. Williams; Jane P. Hanahan; Paul J. McDermott; Florintine Jacinth; Gina L. Robertson; Pamela W. Noto; Dorothy Hayenes; Janet T. Temple; Anthony C. Milligan; Barbara M. Brantley; Sean Hethington; Witcomb, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-6768.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 13, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 19, 2007.
Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Christopher A. Odom appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Odom v. Walmart, No. 2:07-cv-00247-PMD, 2007 WL 1203541 (D.S.C. April 23, 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.