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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?