Vincent Missouri v. United States of America, No. 10-6630 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6630 VINCENT MISSOURI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MARK C. MOORE; DEBORAH B. BARBIER, Assistant US Attorney; UNITED STATES PROBATION DEPARTMENT; DICKIE BRUNSON, Chief US Probation Officer; MYRA E. BAILEY, Supervising US Probation Officer; EARL GILLAM, US Probation Officer; US FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE; UNITED STATES MARSHALL SERVICE, Greenville Division; GREENVILLE SOUTH CAROLINA SHERIFFS OFFICE, STATE OF; JUSTIN HUGHES, Officer, all Defendants officially and individually; HONORABLE MARGARET B. SEYMOUR; US BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNICOR PRISON INDUSTRY; DAVID PLOWDEN; CATHERINE E. EVATT; UNITED STATES MARSHAL S SERVICE, Columbia Division, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (2:09-cv-03269-CMC) Submitted: November 10, 2010 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit November 23, 2010 Judges, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. and HAMILTON, Vincent Missouri, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Vincent denying his Missouri Federal Rule alter or amend judgment. no reversible error. appeals of Civil district Procedure court s 59(e) order motion to We have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons Missouri v. United States, No. stated by the district court. 2:09-cv-03269-CMC the (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 2010). To the extent Missouri requests in his informal brief to waive the appellate case filing requests. legal before fee to amend his complaint, we deny those We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the and court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.