Reginald Evans v. York County, Inc., No. 17-2340 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2340 REGINALD D. EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. YORK COUNTY, INC., Defendant - Appellant, BH MANAGEMENT; PACE RIVER APARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees, and ROCK HILL INC.; PACES RIVER APARTMENT; CLIFFORD BERINSKY; THOMAS I. HOWARD; BROWNLEE LAW FIRM PLLC; DINA D. BIGGS; ALYSSA PRUITT; LAND STAR TRANSPORTATION LOGISTIC, INCORPORATED, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:15-cv-04954-JFA) Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Reginald Evans appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his third amended civil complaint as barred by the Rooker-Feldman * doctrine. To the extent that Evans sought to directly challenge the state court’s judgment in federal court, the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over his claims. See Thana v. Bd. of License Comm’rs for Charles Cty., 827 F.3d 314, 319-20 (4th Cir. 2016) (discussing application of Rooker-Feldman doctrine). Although the Rooker-Feldman doctrine would not bar Evans’ due process claim, we affirm on the ground that Evans failed to state a viable claim as to the named defendants. See Quesenberry v. Volvo Trucks N. Am. Retiree Healthcare Benefit Plan, 651 F.3d 437, 442 n.* (4th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e can affirm on any basis fairly supported by the record.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 * Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 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.