Spurlock v. Hurst , 391 F. App'x 257 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-2228
    GILBERT L. SPURLOCK,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DANA R. HURST,     Colonel;    UNITED    STATES    ARMY    CORPS    OF
    ENGINEERS,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Huntington.  Joseph R. Goodwin,
    Chief District Judge. (3:09-cv-00035)
    Submitted:   July 20, 2010                  Decided:      August 13, 2010
    Before MOTZ and    SHEDD,    Circuit   Judges,    and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gilbert L. Spurlock, Appellant Pro Se. Carol Ann Casto,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Gilbert    L.     Spurlock     seeks     to    appeal    the     district
    court’s    order    adopting      the   recommendation       of     the    magistrate
    judge     and    dismissing    his      complaints    on    jurisdictional          and
    sovereign immunity grounds.              “An appeal may not be taken in
    forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it
    is not taken in good faith.”                  
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (a)(3) (2006).
    Here, the district court denied Spurlock permission to proceed
    in forma pauperis, certifying in writing that the appeal was not
    taken in good faith.
    We    review    the   district      court’s    denial     of    leave   to
    proceed in forma pauperis on appeal for abuse of discretion.
    See Harvey v. Taylor Country Farms, Ltd., 
    1992 WL 166502
    , at *1
    (4th Cir. 1992) (No. 91-1849) (unpublished) (citing Williams v.
    Field, 
    394 F.2d 329
     (9th Cir. 1968)).                      The district court’s
    certification that the appeal is taken in bad faith controls in
    the absence of some showing that the district court itself made
    such a determination in bad faith.               See Maloney v. E.I. Du Pont
    de Nemours & Co., 
    396 F.2d 939
     (D.C. Cir. 1967).                          We conclude
    that Spurlock has not made such a showing.                        Accordingly, we
    grant the Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal, deny leave to
    proceed in forma pauperis, deny Spurlock’s motions to subpoena
    documents, to schedule oral argument, and to proceed without
    payment of fees, and dismiss the appeal.                  We dispense with oral
    2
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-2228

Citation Numbers: 391 F. App'x 257

Judges: Hamilton, Motz, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 8/13/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023