Wayne Traywick v. Medical University

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:16-cv-00730-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999976851]. Mailed to: Wayne Traywick #80048 520 East Vine Street Keller, TX 76248. [16-1872]

Appeal: 16-1872

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1872

WAYNE TRAYWICK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HOOD LAW FIRM,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:16-cv-00730-DCN)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

November 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Traywick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1872

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Wayne

Traywick

appeals

from

the

district

court’s

order

affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to
sua sponte dismiss Traywick’s complaint as frivolous.
complaint,

Traywick

sought

to

relitigate

his

In the

dismissal

from

dental school with essentially the same claims he raised in a
prior action, which the district court denied in 1995.

He also

sought to nullify the 1995 judgment for fraud on the court under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3).
Because Traywick is neither a prisoner nor proceeding in
forma pauperis in district court, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2),
complaints

1915A
that

(2012),

fail

to

permitting
state

a

sua

claim,

sponte

dismissal

do

apply.

not

of
See

Stafford v. United States, 208 F.3d 1177, 1179 n.4 (10th Cir.
2000); Porter v. Fox, 99 F.3d 271, 273 n.1 (8th Cir. 1996).
court

has,

however,

complaints.

inherent

authority

to

dismiss

A

frivolous

See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S.

296, 307-08 (1989) (“Section 1915(d) . . . authorizes courts to
dismiss a frivolous or malicious action, but there is little
doubt they would have power to do so even in the absence of this
statutory provision.”) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We find that the district court properly used its inherent
authority

to

duplicative.

dismiss

Traywick’s

complaint

as

frivolous

and

We also find that Traywick did not allege fraud on
2

Appeal: 16-1872

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

the court warranting postjudgment relief under Rule 60(d)(3).
We therefore affirm the district court’s order.

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