Roy Roberts v. Corporal Sumner ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7488
ROY ALLEN ROBERTS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CORPORAL CHARLIE SUMNER,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
CAPTAIN GREGORY PEAKE,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(5:11-cv-00002-TMC)
Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: February 15, 2013
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roy Allen Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Holmes Burton,
GIBBES & BURTON, LLC, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roy Allen Roberts, a South Carolina inmate, filed a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action against Defendants Charlie Sumner, a
former employee of the South Carolina Department of Corrections
(“SCDC”), and his former supervisor, Gregory Peake. Roberts
alleged that the Defendants violated his due process rights and
defamed him in connection with Roberts’s disciplinary
conviction. * The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of Sumner on
Roberts’s due process claim and to refuse supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. Roberts
appeals, and we affirm.
On appeal, Roberts first challenges the district
court’s refusal to grant his motions to compel and for a
subpoena duces tecum. This court reviews a district court’s
discovery rulings for abuse of discretion. Carefirst of Md.,
Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th
Cir. 2003). We conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in refusing to grant these motions. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(1), 34(a).
*
Peake is not a party to the present appeal, and Roberts
does not challenge on appeal the court’s dismissal of claims
against Peake. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (indicating that arguments
not raised in informal brief are waived).
2
Roberts further argues that the district court erred
in considering the affidavit of two officers included with
Sumner’s motion for summary judgment. Because this argument is
made for the first time on appeal, it is not properly before
this court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th
Cir. 1993) (stating that issues raised for first time on appeal
generally are not considered absent exceptional circumstances).
Roberts also challenges the district court’s
conclusion that he was provided all process constitutionally due
him during his disciplinary proceeding. We have thoroughly
reviewed the record in this case and conclude that the district
court committed no reversible error in granting summary judgment
as to Roberts’s due process claim. Accordingly, we affirm on
this issue substantially for the reasons stated by the district
court. Roberts v. Sumner, No. 5:11-cv-00002-TMC (D.S.C.
Aug. 23, 2012).
In summary, then, we decline to disturb the district
court’s judgment. We further deny Roberts’s motion for
appointment of counsel. 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