Court Opinion

ID: 9405277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:01:00.288471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.705891
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2166      Doc: 24         Filed: 06/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2166

        CRISTINA GILLASPIE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; SPECIAL
        AGENT DOYLE MULLIS; SPECIAL AGENT ANTHONY LUCKMAN,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:21-cv-01935-DCN)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: June 26, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: R. Britton Kelly, Peter Phillips, KELLY LAW FIRM, Charleston, South
        Carolina, for Appellant. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
        David H. Estes, United States Attorney, Mark B. Stern, Joshua M. Koppel, Civil Division,
        UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2166      Doc: 24         Filed: 06/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Cristina Gillaspie appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation to grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss and drop parties in Gillaspie’s

        action brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 to 2680, the

        Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 706, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed.

        Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Upon review of the arguments pressed on appeal

        in conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities, we find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Gillaspie v. United States, No. 2:21-cv-

        01935-DCN (D.S.C. Oct. 7, 2022). 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

                                                     2