The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-2389•Marcus S. Payne v. Dorothy Dirton-Hill
08-2389Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 3, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2389
MARCUS S. PAYNE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
ERIC C. PAYNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOROTHY DIRTON-HILL; BROADUS F. JONES; DAISY E. JONES;
FLETCHER ANDERSON; ADALYNN C. PAYNE, a/k/a Adalynn C.
Joyner; JOHN DOE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:08-cv-01924-GRA)
Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 3, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus S. Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Dorothy Dirton-Hill; Broadus
F. Jones; Daisy E. Jones; Adalynn C. Payne, Appellees Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Marcus S. Payne appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his complaint without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Payne’s motions to
supplement the record and for equal consideration and affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Payne v. Dirton-Hill,
No. 6:08-cv-01924-GRA (D.S.C. Dec. 3, 2008). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.