UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7450
ROBERT HOLLAND KOON, a/k/a Robert Koon, a/k/a Robert H.
Koon,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA LYNCH, US Attorney General, in her official capacity
as chief/judge/chief solicitor of SC; JEAN TOAL, Chief
Justice, in their official capacity as chief/judge/chief
solicitor of SC; ALAN WILSON, SC Attorney General, in his
official capacity as chief/judge/chief solicitor of SC,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 15-7454
ROBERT HOLLAND KOON, a/k/a Robert Koon, a/k/a Robert H.
Koon,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA LYNCH, US Attorney General, in her official capacity
as chief/judge/chief solicitor of SC; JEAN TOAL, Chief
Justice, in their official capacity as chief/judge/chief
solicitor of SC; ALAN WILSON, SC Attorney General, in his
official capacity as chief/judge/chief solicitor of SC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District
Judge. (4:15-cv-02107-DCN; 4:15-cv-02349-DCN)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Holland Koon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these duplicative and consolidated cases, Robert Holland
Koon appeals the district court’s orders accepting the
recommendations of the magistrate judge and dismissing without
prejudice Koon’s civil complaints. In No. 15-7450, Koon also
appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to alter
or set aside the judgment. We have reviewed the records and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm in both cases
for the reasons stated by the district court. Koon v. Lynch,
No. 4:15-cv-02107-DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 12 & 27, 2015); Koon v.
Lynch, No. 4:15-cv-02349-DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 12, 2015). 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