UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6055
GEORGE E. CARTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-02-880-18-0)
Submitted: February 25, 2003 Decided: March 14, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George E. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
George E. Carter appeals the district court’s order adopting
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting
summary judgment in favor of the United States on Carter’s claims
brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671,
1346(b) (2000). We affirm.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.
I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts
in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). This
Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
255 (1986).
With these standards in mind, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. Carter v. United States, No. CA-02-880-18-0
(D.S.C. Dec. 13, 2002). 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