Jorge Gevara v. Boyd Bennett, No. 12-6258 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6258 JORGE GEVARA, a/k/a Jorge Galeas, Jr., Plaintiff Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT; ROBERT C. LEWIS; RICK JACKSON; RICHARD NEELY; KEVIN T. KING, Ex-Assistant Superintendent; KORY DALRYMPLE, Assistant Superintendent; RONALD COVINGTON, Unit Manager; FNU EDWARDS, Captain; DENNIS MARSHALL, Assistant Unit Manager; JERLINE BENNETT, Program Director 1; K. INGRAM, Sergeant; W. HORNE, Sergeant; FNU YAKUBIK, Officer; FNU BROWN, Officer; FNU KIKER, Officer; FNU LOCKETT, Officer; JANE DOE, 1 and 2; FNU MCLAUGHLIN, Officer; FNU FAULKNER, Officer; ALVIN KELLER; FRANKLIN STEELE, Unit Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00354-RJC) Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 26, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jorge Gevara, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jorge Gevara, a North Carolina prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court s order denying his post-judgment motion seeking permission to file a first amended and supplemental complaint and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the court s prior 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. judgment dismissing On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant s brief. R. 34(b). his 4th Cir. Because Gevara s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court s disposition of his Rule 59(e) motion, Gevara has forfeited appellate review of that ruling. With respect to the district court s denial of Gevara s post-judgment motion seeking permission to file a first amended and supplemental complaint, Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that granted when justice so requires. leave to amend be freely Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A district court may not deny a motion to amend simply because it has entered judgment against the plaintiff-be it a judgment of dismissal, a summary judgment, or a judgment after a trial on Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 427 (4th Cir. 2006) the merits. (en banc). the same judgment Id. A post-judgment motion to amend is evaluated under legal was standard entered-for as a similar prejudice, bad motion faith, filed or before futility. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the 2 motion to amend which indicated that Gevara wished to file a class action conditions at complaint the against various correctional incarcerated was futile. defendants institution where based on Gevara is See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (per curiam) (holding that a pro se prisoner may not litigate the interests of other prisoners in a class action). We accordingly affirm the district court s denial of the motion. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED * We are not limited to evaluation of the grounds offered by the district court to support its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record. United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir. 2005). 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.