Joe Logan, Sr. v. US, No. 12-7582 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7582 JOE LOGAN, SR., Plaintiff Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant Appellee, and UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:10-ct-03173-FL) Submitted: January 28, 2013 Decided: February 12, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe Logan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joe Logan, Sr., appeals the district court s orders dismissing his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act ( FTCA ) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. * On appeal, Logan argues that the district court abused its discretion in rejecting his requests to reopen discovery and for an enlargement of time. He also challenges the district court s conclusion that his FTCA claim is barred by the discretionary function exception to sovereign immunity. 18 U.S.C. § 2680(a) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error as to these issues. affirm court. substantially for the See reasons stated Accordingly, we by the district Logan v. United States, No. 5:10-ct-03173-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2012 & Sept. 6, 2012). appointment of counsel. We deny Logan s motion for 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 * While we conclude that the district court erred in construing Logan s motion to alter or amend as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, we conclude this error was harmless, as Logan cannot demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e). See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (describing Rule 59(e) standard). 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.