Clark Thomas v. Charleston County, No. 21-6646 (4th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6646 CLARK D. THOMAS, a/k/a George K. Nichols, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLESTON COUNTY; WILLIAM J. AGOSTA; DESIREE R. ALLEN; JULIE J. ARMSTRONG; AXELROD & ASSOCIATES; STUART M. AXELROD; D. KEITH BOLUS; MICHAEL T. BOLUS; ORIN G. BRIGGS; JOCELYN B. CATE; CITY OF FOLLY BEACH; ADASHA L. CLARKE; LESLEY M. COGGIOLA; NICHOLE L. DENEANE; R. MARKLEY DENNIS; TIMOTHY M. GLOVER; KRISTY L. GOLDBERG; JAMES B. GOSNELL; DAVID G. GUYTON; KRISTI L. HARRINGTON; LAREE A. HENSLEY; SHARON D. JONES; WOLFGANG L. KELLY; LISA A. KINON; EDWARD L. KNISLEY, JR.; JUDY L. MCMAHON; CATHY L. MEREE; ANNE B. MEYER; J. C. NICHOLSON, JR.; KATRINA L. PATTON; JOSEPH K. QUALEY; GARY W. REINHART; JOYCE C. RUEGER; TRISTAN M. SHAFFER; JAMES W. SMILEY, IV; CHRISTOPHER L. TALBOTT; CECIL J. TERRY, JR.; SABRINA C. TODD; ROSE B. WALKER; NATHAN S. WILLIAMS; ASHLEIGH R. WILSON; SCARLETT A. WILSON; HENRY T. WOODS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-01958-MBS) Submitted: December 16, 2021 Decided: December 17, 2021 Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clark D. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Clark D. Thomas appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Thomas’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Charleston Cnty., No. 2:17-cv-01958-MBS (D.S.C. filed Sept. 15 & entered Sept. 17, 2020; Mar. 24, 2021). We deny Thomas’ motion to appoint 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 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.