Evans v. York Cnty., Inc.

Full title: REGINALD D. EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. YORK COUNTY, INC., Defendant…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 2, 2018

No. 17-2340 (4th Cir. Apr. 2, 2018)

Opinion

No. 17-2340

04-02-2018

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.

Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

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) Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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).