Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06445/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06445-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Susan Duffy
Appellee
Anthony Fred Martin
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6445

ANTHONY FRED MARTIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SUSAN DUFFY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:15-cv-04947-DCN)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: January 13, 2025

Before GREGORY, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Fred Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, LINDEMANN LAW 

FIRM, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6445 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Fred Martin, a South Carolina prisoner, filed a civil action against 

Defendant Susan Duffy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have engaged in lengthy 

litigation concerning whether Duffy violated Martin’s First Amendment rights by placing 

him in administrative segregation after Martin accused a correctional officer of sexual 

assault. See Martin v. Duffy, 977 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 2020); Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239 

(4th Cir. 2017). A jury ultimately found in Duffy’s favor, and the district court entered 

judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict and denied Martin’s subsequent Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.

The instant appeal returns to us after a limited remand to the district court to 

determine whether Martin’s notice of appeal was timely filed. In accordance with the 

district court’s findings on remand, we conclude that Martin timely noted his appeal and, 

therefore, that we have jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we deny Duffy’s motion 

to dismiss the appeal. We also deny Martin’s motion for sanctions related to the motion.

Turning to the merits of Martin’s appeal, we have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6445 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 2 of 2