Joseph Mays v. Jennifer Saad ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 23-7127      Doc: 17         Filed: 11/21/2024     Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 23-7127
    JOSEPH RANDOLPH MAYS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JENNIFER SAAD; RICHARD HUDGINS; MS. R. THOMPSON; MR.
    MCADAMS; H. WILLIAMS; ANGELA DUNBAR; R. CLEM; OFFICER
    TANNER; OFFICER HUDNALL; IAN CONNORS; JOHN DOE; JOHN/JANE
    DOES; E. DODRILL,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
    Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00199-GMG)
    Submitted: November 19, 2024                                Decided: November 21, 2024
    Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Joseph Randolph Mays, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 23-7127        Doc: 17       Filed: 11/21/2024     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph Randolph Mays appeals the district court’s orders accepting the magistrate
    judge’s recommendation to grant the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Mays’s amended
    Bivens * complaint and denying Mays’s motion for reconsideration. The court dismissed
    the 25 defendants named in both Mays’s original and amended complaint on various
    grounds, including both procedural grounds, such as Mays’s failure to effectuate proper
    service, and substantive grounds, such as absolute immunity, lack of personal jurisdiction,
    and Mays’s failure to state a plausible claim for relief against several of the Defendants.
    We have reviewed the record and the bases for the district court’s dismissal of each
    defendant and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
    Mays v. Saad, No. 3:20-cv-00199-GMG (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 29, 2023; Oct. 10, 2023). We
    further deny Mays’s motion to appoint 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
    *
    Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
    (1971).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-7127

Filed Date: 11/21/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/25/2024