David Bardes v. The State of South Carolina ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2133
DAVID A. BARDES, individually, as a taxpayer,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
JOHN DOES; JANE DOES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00999-CCE-LPA)
Submitted: January 28, 2014 Decided: February 7, 2014
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; affirmed as modified in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
David A. Bardes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David A. Bardes appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing Bardes’ civil complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Bardes
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Bardes v. South Carolina, No.
1:11-cv-00999-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2013).
Bardes also appeals the district court’s text order
denying his Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. *
We note that Bardes’ appeal of the district court’s order
dismissing his civil complaint was pending in this court at the
time the district court entered this text order. Because the
text order was not in aid of the pending appeal, the district
court was without jurisdiction to enter it. See Wolfe v.
Clarke, 718 F.3d 277, 281 n.3 (4th Cir. 2013); Dixon v. Edwards,
290 F.3d 699, 709 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s text order as modified to reflect that the
*
Although Bardes did not file an amended notice of appeal
to include the district court’s text order, his informal
appellate brief may serve as a notice of appeal, and we deem it
timely filed. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992)
(holding that appellate brief may serve as notice of appeal
provided it otherwise complies with rules governing proper
timing and substance).
2
district court was without jurisdiction to consider Bardes’
Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART
3