Carl Brock v. Catherine Bowman ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6539
CARL BLAKE BROCK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CATHERINE BOWMAN, Radiology Tech,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
DONALD PEITRISKO, SIS Lieutenant John Doe 4; JOHN DOE 2,
Correctional Officer; MARSHALL SHEARER, Correctional Officer
John Doe 1; BRETT FRIEND, Registered Nurse; M. AZUMAH, Mid
Level Practioner; PATRICIA CORBIN, Physician's Assistant;
JORGE S. VASQUEZ, Medical Doctor; BRIAN YUNG, Medical
Doctor; ALISON WILSON, Medical Doctor; HECTOR LOPEZ, Medical
Doctor; VALERIE SMITH, Physician's Assistant; DONARDO FONTE,
Physician's Assistant; ARUNAVA SAHA, Mid Level Practioner;
LORENZO GUEVARA, Asst. Health Serv. Adm.; L. FUERTES-
ROSARIO, Health Serv. Admin.; W. E. MACKELBURG, Admn Rem
Cord; PENNY RICE, Secretary; R. A. BLOCKER, Clinical
Director; JASON ELLIOT, Correctional Officer John Doe 3,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(5:10-cv-02821-MGL)
Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl Blake Brock, Appellant Pro Se. Walter S. Ameika, Jr., LAW
OFFICES OF WALTER S. AMEIKA, JR., North Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Carl Blake Brock appeals the district court’s entry of
judgment against him in this action filed pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971). Specifically, he challenges the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying Brock’s motions for a default judgment and partial
summary judgment against Catherine Bowman. Upon review of the
record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Brock’s motion for default. See Colleton
Prep. Acad., Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 616 F.3d 413, 417
(4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review). Any doubts about
whether to grant a default judgment should be resolved in favor
of deciding a case on the merits. Tolson v. Hodge, 411 F.2d
123, 130 (4th Cir. 1969). The partial summary judgment motion
is, in essence, a repetition of Brock’s arguments for a default
judgment. Accordingly, finding no merit in the issues Brock
raises on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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