Nathaniel Hampton v. Paula Edgerton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999673793-2] Originating case number: 4:14-cv-04697-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999801343]. Mailed to: Nathaniel Hampton. [15-2082]

Appeal: 15-2082

Doc: 19

Filed: 04/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2082

NATHANIEL HAMPTON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PAULA EDGERTON; ROBINA SCHENCK; CYNTHIA
COLEMAN, Housing Authority of Florence,

WILLIAMS;

WILLIE

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (4:14-cv-04697-JMC)

Submitted:

January 28, 2016

Decided:

April 22, 2016

Before GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Hampton, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael Kirk Battle,
BATTLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Conway, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2082

Doc: 19

Filed: 04/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel
accepting

the

granting

Hampton

recommendation

summary

Hampton v.

appeals

judgment

Edgerton,

No.

the
of

district

the

in

court’s

magistrate

favor

of

4:14-cv-04697-JMC

the

order

judge

and

Defendants.

(D.S.C.

Sept.

9,

2015).

On appeal, Hampton argues that the district court erred

in

conclusion

its

with

his

freedom

regarding
of

his

claims

association;

for:

(1) interference

(2) retaliation;

(3)

civil

conspiracy; (4) a due process violation, and; (5) intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Regarding
without

Hampton’s

deciding,

that

First
Hampton

Amendment
had

a

claim,

fundamental

assuming,
right

to

associate with his girlfriend, his right was not infringed upon
in

this

instance.

Where

government

action

implicates

a

fundamental right, it will be subject to strict scrutiny only
where the action “interferes directly and substantially with the
fundamental right.”
(4th Cir. 1995).

Waters v. Gaston Cty., 57 F.3d 422, 426

Where government action has only an incidental

effect on a fundamental right, rational basis review applies.
Id.
The

governmental

policy

at

issue

here

did

not

prohibit

cohabitation with a nonmarital partner or forbid it altogether
without permission of the government.
constituted

“[a]t

most,

an

unwelcome
2

The governmental action
hurdle”

to

Hampton’s

Appeal: 15-2082

Doc: 19

association

with

Filed: 04/22/2016

his

Pg: 3 of 3

girlfriend

rational basis review.

Id.

and

is

therefore

subject

to

Under that standard, the policy

need only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental
interest.
2013).

Wilkins v. Gaddy, 734 F.3d 344, 348-49 (4th Cir.

We conclude that the government policy is permissible

under this standard of review.
We have reviewed the record and find no merit to Hampton’s
remaining contentions.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3