Christopher Odom v. State of South Carolina, No. 16-2121 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2121 CHRISTOPHER A. ODOM, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JASON KING, Public Defender; CHARLES PATRICK, Solicitor; JUDGE MULLINS; SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD; JUDGE JAMES GOSNELL; MAYOR JOE RILEY, City of Charleston; GOVERNOR NIKKI HALEY; MAYOR KEITH SUMNEY, North Charleston; JUDGE GARFINKEL; JUDGE KRISTI HARRINGTON; JUDGE JEFFERSON; STATE ATTORNEY ALAN WILSON; P.D. ASHLEY PENNINGTON; PROSECUTOR SCARLETT WILSON; MICHAEL GRANT; MUSC; DOLLAR TREE; CARTA BUS CO.; CARTA BUS WHEELCHAIR LIFT MANUFACTURER; CARTA BUS INSURER; CARTA BUS DRIVER; OFFICER CHERRY, of Charleston Police Dep't; OFFICER HO, of Charleston Police Dep't; UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICER, with Officer Ho on Dec. 16, 2014; OFFICER TUGYA, of Charleston Police Dep't; CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TAXPAYERS; COUNTY OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; FNU LNU, Female Victim Advocate; DR. STEPHANIE MONTGOMERY; CHAMPUS, Insurer; FNU LNU, Doctors from MUSC who approved placement of Plaintiff in SCDMH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (5:16-cv-02674-RMG) Submitted: January 27, 2017 Decided: February 16, 2017 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Christopher adopting the A. Odom magistrate appeals the judge’s district court’s recommendation, order dismissing Odom’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012), and imposing a pre-filing injunction. reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in formal pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Odom v. South Carolina, No. 5:16-cv-02674- RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 2016). 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. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.