Christopher Garris, Jr. v. Alfonso Gober , 554 F. App'x 211 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7393
CHRISTOPHER JOHANNE GARRIS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALFONSO L. GOBER, Sergeant,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00504-CCE-LPA)
Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: February 11, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Johanne Garris, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Scott
Bartley Goodson, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Johanne Garris, Jr., a North Carolina
state prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint
against correctional officer Alfonso L. Gober, asserting that
Gober used constitutionally excessive force against him in
closing the tray door in Garris’ prison cell on Garris’ finger.
Garris appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions
for entry of default judgment and granting summary judgment in
favor of Gober. We affirm.
First, Garris challenges the district court’s denial
of his motions for default judgment against Gober. The court
denied the motion upon concluding that Gober had not been served
in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). “Absent waiver or
consent, a failure to obtain proper service on the defendant
deprives the court of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”
Koehler v. Dodwell, 152 F.3d 304, 306 (4th Cir. 1998). Upon
review of the record, we agree with the district court that the
initial attempt at serving Gober, which was effected by leaving
the summons and complaint with a coworker, did not satisfy the
requirements of Rule 4(e). Therefore, the court did not err in
denying Garris’ motions for default judgment.
Garris next contends that the district court erred in
granting Gober summary judgment. We review de novo a district
court’s summary judgment determination, drawing reasonable
2
inferences from the evidence viewed in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party. Webster v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 685
F.3d 411, 421 (4th Cir. 2012). Having done so, we affirm the
grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated by the district
court. Garris v. Gober, No. 1:10-cv-00504 (M.D.N.C., Aug. 22,
2013).
We therefore affirm the judgment below. We deny
Garris’ motions for appointment of 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
3