Roger Stevenson v. April Shoup, No. 09-7927 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 7, 2011.

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7927 ROGER STEVENSON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. APRIL SHOUP, Unit Manager at the Marion Correctional Institution; JASON DOBSON, Case Manager; TURNER SOUTH, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00305-GCM) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roger Stevenson appeals from the district court s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006) civil rights action. The district court entered Stevenson timely judgment appeal on on October October 9, 13, 2009, and 2009. On October noted 22, a 2009, Stevenson filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)-(b) and 59(e), seeking to set aside and amend the district findings and alter or amend the October 9 judgment. court s Defendants filed a response in opposition in November 2009. Stevenson s motion remains pending in the district court, and the court has not indicated any inclination to grant it. In the interest of avoiding further delay in this case, we order a limited remand and direct the district court to promptly consider the motion on its merits. Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 891 See Fobian v. Storage Tech. (4th Cir. 1999). If the court concludes that the motion is meritless, it should deny it; if the court is inclined to grant the motion, it should issue a short memorandum so stating. The record, as supplemented, will be returned to this court for further consideration after the district court s ruling. In ordering this remand, we express no opinion as to the merits of Stevenson s motion. REMANDED 2

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.