Court Opinion

ID: 9892791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 21:00:43.840767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:27.652861
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1538      Doc: 12         Filed: 10/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1538

        REVEREND DR. SAMUEL T. WHATLEY; SAMUEL T. WHATLEY, II,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                     v.

        CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON; NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE
        DEPARTMENT; NORTH CHARLESTON CODE ENFORCEMENT; CITY OF
        NORTH CHARLESTON MUNICIPAL COURT,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00516-SAL)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 23, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Samuel T. Whatley, Samuel T. Whatley, II, Appellants Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1538      Doc: 12         Filed: 10/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Reverend Dr. Samuel T. Whatley and Samuel T. Whatley, II, appeal the district

        court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without

        prejudice their action brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act for lack of

        subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Whatley v. City of N. Charleston, No.

        2:23-cv-00516-SAL (D.S.C. May 12, 2023). 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

                                                    2