Gilbert Spurlock v. Dana Hurst, No. 09-2228 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2228 GILBERT L. SPURLOCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DANA R. HURST, ENGINEERS, Colonel; UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF 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 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and August 13, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 court s judge order and L. Spurlock adopting the dismissing his seeks to appeal recommendation complaints sovereign immunity grounds. on of the the district magistrate jurisdictional and 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. ยง 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 See Harvey v. Taylor Country Farms, Ltd., 1992 WL 166502, at *1 (4th Cir. 1992) (No. 91-1849) (unpublished) (citing Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1968)).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). that Spurlock has not made such a showing. We conclude 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. 2 We dispense with oral 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
