Reginald Evans v. York County, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:15-cv-04954-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000268332]. Mailed to: Reginald Evans. [17-2340]

Appeal: 17-2340

Doc: 5

Filed: 04/02/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2340

REGINALD D. EVANS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
YORK COUNTY, INC.,
Defendant - Appellant,
BH MANAGEMENT; PACE RIVER APARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
ROCK HILL INC.; PACES RIVER APARTMENT; CLIFFORD BERINSKY;
THOMAS I. HOWARD; BROWNLEE LAW FIRM PLLC; DINA D. BIGGS;
ALYSSA PRUITT; LAND STAR TRANSPORTATION LOGISTIC,
INCORPORATED,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:15-cv-04954-JFA)

Submitted: March 29, 2018

Decided: April 2, 2018

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

Appeal: 17-2340

Doc: 5

Filed: 04/02/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-2340

Doc: 5

Filed: 04/02/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Reginald Evans appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and dismissing his third amended civil complaint as barred by the
Rooker-Feldman * doctrine. To the extent that Evans sought to directly challenge the
state court’s judgment in federal court, the district court correctly determined that it
lacked jurisdiction over his claims. See Thana v. Bd. of License Comm’rs for Charles
Cty., 827 F.3d 314, 319-20 (4th Cir. 2016) (discussing application of Rooker-Feldman
doctrine). Although the Rooker-Feldman doctrine would not bar Evans’ due process
claim, we affirm on the ground that Evans failed to state a viable claim as to the named
defendants. See Quesenberry v. Volvo Trucks N. Am. Retiree Healthcare Benefit Plan,
651 F.3d 437, 442 n.* (4th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e can affirm on any basis fairly supported by
the record.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s judgment.

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

*

Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983).

3