Joseph Gibbs v. Jon Ozmint

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cv-03955-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998560557]. Mailed to: Joseph Gibbs. [10-7189]

Download PDF
Case: 10-7189 Document: 16 Date Filed: 04/05/2011 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7189 JOSEPH HUGO GIBBS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JON E. OZMINT, as the Director of SCDC, et al.; RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-03955-PMD) Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 5, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Hugo DAVIDSON & Appellees. Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, James M. Davis, Jr., South Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-7189 Document: 16 Date Filed: 04/05/2011 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Hugo Gibbs appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying Gibbs’ motion to remand to state court and dismissing Gibbs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. Additionally, Gibbs appeals the district court’s margin order denying his motion for rehearing, but granting in part his motion to amend judgment to reflect dismissal without prejudice. record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gibbs v. Ozmint, No. 3:08-cv-03955-PMD (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 2009; July 26, 2010; filed Aug. 5, 2010 & entered Aug. 6, 2010). 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?