Joseph Mays v. Jennifer Saad

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Joseph Mays v. Jennifer Saad

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Reference

Status
Unpublished