Michael Moment v. Dwight Dave Jackson, No. 17-6479 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 22, 2018.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6479 MICHAEL MOMENT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DWIGHT DAVE JACKSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:16-cv-04040-PWG) Submitted: June 14, 2018 Decided: June 19, 2018 Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John J. Korzen, Vanessa Garrido, Third-Year Law Student, John Allen Riggins, ThirdYear Law Student, Appellate Advocacy Clinic, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert A. Scott, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Moment appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Moment v. Jackson, No. 8:16-cv-04040-PWG (D. Md. Feb. 15, 2017). We deny as unnecessary Moment’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, grant Moment leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and deny Moment’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 * We previously remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Moment was entitled to have his time to file an appeal reopened under Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The district court determined that Moment was entitled to a reopening of the appeal period. Accordingly, we deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. 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.
