Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hancox v. Augusta General District Court

United States District Court, Fourth Circuit

October 10, 2013

JOHN LAMER HANCOX, Plaintiff,
v.
AUGUSTA GENERAL DISTRICT COURT, JUDGE WILLIAM GOODWIN, Defendant.

MEMORADUM OPINION

MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, District Judge.

John Lamer Hancox, pro se, brought this action on October 1, 2013, against the Honorable William Goodwin, a sitting Judge of the August General District Court for actions taken by Judge Goodwin in his role as a judge of that court. This court dismissed the case on the grounds of judicial immunity on October 3, 2013. (See Dkt Nos. 5). On October 10, 2013, Plaintiff submitted pleadings that are largely unintelligible. The court was, however, able to glean one comprehensible objection: that one of the authorities cited in the court's memorandum opinion (Dkt. No. 4) dismissing the case, Battle v. Whitehurst , 36 F.3d 1091 (4th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), was unpublished. The court therefore construes these pleadings as motion for reconsideration of judgment (Dkt. No. 6) pursuant to Fed R. Civ P. 59(e).[1] That motion will be denied.

"Although Ptaintiff is correct that unpublished opinions do not constitute binding precedence, unpublished opinions can be persuasive when they address questions currently before the Court." Martin v. Clemson Univ. , 654 F.Supp.2d 410, 417 (D.S.C. 2009); see also Collins v. Pond Creek Minina Co. , 468 F.3d 213, 219-20 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding unpublished decisions "to be entitled to the weight they generate by the persuasiveness of their reasoning). Even more importantly, Battle cites King v. Myers , 973 F.2d 354 (4th Cir.1992), a published Fourth Circuit case, for the proposition of law for which the court cited it- a fact made abundantly clearly in the court's memorandum opinion of October 3, 2013.

The remainder of Plaintiff's argument is utterly incomprehensible and warrants no further discussion.

Plaintiff's motion is therefore void of even the slightest merit. It shall be denied by appropriate order entered this day.

The Clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.