D.M. Bandara v. Dan Mann

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

D.M. Bandara v. Dan Mann

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1903

DR. D.M. INDIKA BANDARA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DAN MANN, Richland-Lexington Airport District Commission Members, AAE Director; JAMES A. COMPTON, Richland-Lexington Airport District Commission Members (Chairman); CAROL FOWLER, Richland-Lexington Airport District Commission Members; F. XAVIER STARKES, Esq, Richland- Lexington Airport District Commission Members; WILLIAM DUKES, a/k/a Bill, Richland-Lexington Airport District Commission Members; JERROD F. HOWARD, Richland-Lexington Airport District Commission Members; RICHARD MCINTYRE, Richland-Lexington Airport District Commission Members; DAN P. BELL, Richland-Lexington Airport District Commission Members; HAZEL L. BENNETT, Richland-Lexington Airport District Commission Members; D. J. CARSON, Richland-Lexington Airport District Commission Members; DAVID N. JORDAN, Richland-Lexington Airport District Commission Members; JAMES L. WHITMIRE, Richland-Lexington Airport District Commission Members; DUANE COOPER, Richland-Lexington Airport District Commission Members; LYNNE DOUGLAS, Richland-Lexington Airport District Commission Members,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-03212-TLW)

Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018

Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

D.M. Indika Bandara, Appellant Pro Se. Carey Michael Ayer, DAVIS FRAWLEY, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

D.M. Indika Bandara appeals the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her complaint raising

claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2012) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Bandara v. Mann, No. 3:16-cv-03212-TLW (D.S.C. filed June 6 & entered June 7, 2018).

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

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished