William Coleman v. Rock Hill Municipal Court, No. 13-7280 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7280 WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROCK HILL MUNICIPAL COURT; JUDGE LONG; JUDGE MODLZ; UNKNOWN ROCK HILL MUNICIPAL COURT DEFENDANTS, May be amended, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (0:12-cv-01909-JFA) Submitted: December 27, 2013 Decided: January 16, 2014 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William T. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William accepting the Coleman appeals recommendation the of district the court s magistrate order judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no We affirm the district court s dismissal of the claims against the Rock Hill Municipal Court and Judge Modlz for the reasons stated by the district court. See Coleman v. Rock Hill Mun. Court, No. 0:12-cv-01909-JFA (D.S.C. July 29, 2013). However, we agree with Coleman that the favorable termination rule announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), does not bar his pro se § 1983 action against Judge Long. See 512 U.S. 477, 487 & n.7 ( [I]f the district court determines that the plaintiff s action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to the suit. ). We nevertheless affirm the district court s judgment on this claim on alternative grounds. See MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir. 2002) ( [W]e are entitled to affirm the court s judgment on alternate grounds, if such grounds are apparent from the record. ). record leads us to conclude that 2 Judge Our review of the Long is entitled to absolute judicial immunity because his actions were well within the scope of his jurisdiction. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1987). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this Court and argument will not aid the 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.