Wayne Traywick v. Medical University of SC, No. 16-1872 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1872 WAYNE TRAYWICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HOOD LAW FIRM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00730-DCN) Submitted: November 22, 2016 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, November 29, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Traywick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wayne Traywick appeals from the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to sua sponte dismiss Traywick’s complaint as frivolous. complaint, Traywick sought to relitigate his In the dismissal from dental school with essentially the same claims he raised in a prior action, which the district court denied in 1995. He also sought to nullify the 1995 judgment for fraud on the court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). Because Traywick is neither a prisoner nor proceeding in forma pauperis in district court, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), complaints 1915A that (2012), fail to permitting state a sua claim, sponte dismissal do apply. not of See Stafford v. United States, 208 F.3d 1177, 1179 n.4 (10th Cir. 2000); Porter v. Fox, 99 F.3d 271, 273 n.1 (8th Cir. 1996). court has, however, complaints. inherent authority to dismiss A frivolous See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (“Section 1915(d) . . . authorizes courts to dismiss a frivolous or malicious action, but there is little doubt they would have power to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision.”) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We find that the district court properly used its inherent authority to duplicative. dismiss Traywick’s complaint as frivolous and We also find that Traywick did not allege fraud on 2 the court warranting postjudgment relief under Rule 60(d)(3). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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 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.
