Jorge Gevara v. Boyd Bennett
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00354-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998840862]. Mailed to: Gevara. [12-6258]
Appeal: 12-6258
Document: 8
Date Filed: 04/26/2012
Page: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6258
JORGE GEVARA, a/k/a Jorge Galeas, Jr.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BOYD BENNETT; ROBERT C. LEWIS; RICK JACKSON; RICHARD NEELY;
KEVIN T. KING, Ex-Assistant Superintendent; KORY DALRYMPLE,
Assistant Superintendent; RONALD COVINGTON, Unit Manager;
FNU EDWARDS, Captain; DENNIS MARSHALL, Assistant Unit
Manager; JERLINE BENNETT, Program Director 1; K. INGRAM,
Sergeant; W. HORNE, Sergeant; FNU YAKUBIK, Officer; FNU
BROWN, Officer; FNU KIKER, Officer; FNU LOCKETT, Officer;
JANE DOE, 1 and 2; FNU MCLAUGHLIN, Officer; FNU FAULKNER,
Officer; ALVIN KELLER; FRANKLIN STEELE, Unit Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00354-RJC)
Submitted:
April 19, 2012
Decided:
April 26, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jorge Gevara, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-6258
Document: 8
Date Filed: 04/26/2012
Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Gevara, a North Carolina prisoner proceeding pro
se, appeals the district court’s order denying his post-judgment
motion
seeking
permission
to
file
a
“first
amended
and
supplemental complaint” and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to
alter
or
amend
the
court’s
prior
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
judgment
dismissing
On appeal, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.
R. 34(b).
his
4th Cir.
Because Gevara’s informal brief does not challenge
the basis for the district court’s disposition of his Rule 59(e)
motion, Gevara has forfeited appellate review of that ruling.
With
respect
to
the
district
court’s
denial
of
Gevara’s post-judgment motion seeking permission to file a first
amended and supplemental complaint, Rule 15 of the Federal Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
requires
that
granted when justice so requires.
leave
to
amend
be
freely
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
A
district court may not deny a motion to amend “simply because it
has entered judgment against the plaintiff-be it a judgment of
dismissal, a summary judgment, or a judgment after a trial on
Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 427 (4th Cir. 2006)
the merits.”
(en banc).
the
same
judgment
Id.
A post-judgment motion to amend is “evaluated under
legal
was
standard
entered-for
as
a
similar
prejudice,
bad
motion
faith,
filed
or
before
futility.”
After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the
2
Appeal: 12-6258
Document: 8
Date Filed: 04/26/2012
Page: 3 of 3
motion to amend—which indicated that Gevara wished to file a
class
action
conditions
at
complaint
the
against
various
correctional
incarcerated—was futile.
defendants
institution
where
based
on
Gevara
is
See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d
1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (per curiam) (holding that a pro se
prisoner may not litigate the interests of other prisoners in a
class
action).
We
accordingly
affirm
the
district
court’s
denial of the motion. *
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
*
“We are not limited to evaluation of the grounds offered
by the district court to support its decision, but may affirm on
any grounds apparent from the record.” United States v. Smith,
395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir. 2005).
3
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?