Court Opinion

ID: 9902077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 21:00:47.626438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:44.631420
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1739      Doc: 17         Filed: 11/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1739

        GREG GIVENS,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        JOHN LONGWELL; H. E. NEUMANN COMPANY,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00290-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 21, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Greg Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Gary Thomas Smith, M. Winiesdorffer-Schirripa,
        SMITHLAW PLLC, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Teresa J. Dumire, Shannon P. Smith,
        KAY CASTO & CHANEY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1739      Doc: 17           Filed: 11/21/2023   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Greg Givens appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil

        complaint. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s order.     Givens v. Longwell, No. 5:22-cv-00290-JPB-JPM

        (N.D. W. Va. July 5, 2023). We deny Givens’ motion to strike the informal response brief

        and impose sanctions, and 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

               *
                Givens also seeks to appeal the district court’s subsequent order denying his Fed.
        R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. That order is not properly before us because Givens did not file
        an amended notice of appeal after the order issued. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).

                                                      2