Hamza Tebib v. Allison Capps

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit February 14, 2025

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6452 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6452

HAMZA TEBIB,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

ALLISON S. CAPPS, ADA, Granville County; ADA BROWN, Granville County District Attorney’s Office; CHIEF JAMES CHAMPION, Butner Police Safety; SGT. LOMINA BRANDON, Butner Police Safety; SHERIFF ROBERT D. FOUNTAIN, Granville Sheriff’s Department; SHERIFF CLEMENT, Granville Sheriff’s Department; CHIEF FRED ROBINSON, Granville Sheriff’s Department; CAPTAIN YANCEE, Granville Sheriff’s Department; EASTERN HEALTH PARTNERS; SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 24-6813

HAMZA TEBIB,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6452 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:23-ct-03288-FL)

Submitted: December 11, 2024 Decided: February 14, 2025

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hamza Tebib, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6452 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/14/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Hamza Tebib appeals the district court’s orders and

judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with

its order to submit an amended complaint and denying his Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e) motion. We affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B) of Tebib’s claims asserting that law enforcement and other officials

violated his civil rights by not investigating or pursuing criminal charges against his wife.

See Martin v. Duffy,

858 F.3d 239, 248

(4th Cir. 2017) (stating standard of review). Tebib

has neither “an enforceable right to institute a criminal prosecution,” Lopez v. Robinson,

914 F.2d 486, 494

(4th Cir. 1990), nor any judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution

or non-prosecution of another, Linda R.S. v. Richard D.,

410 U.S. 614

, 619 (1973). We

further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Tebib’s action

without prejudice after he failed to comply with the court’s April 29, 2024, order. See

Attkisson v. Holder,

925 F.3d 606, 620

(4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard of review). Lastly,

the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tebib’s Rule 59(e) motion. Tebib failed

to alert the court to an intervening change in the controlling law, new evidence, or a clear

error of law or a manifest injustice. See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., LLC,

599 F.3d 403, 407

(4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review).

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6452 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/14/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders and judgment. 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

Reference

Status: Unpublished