Patricia Thomas v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 29, 2024
Docket23-2161
StatusUnpublished

This text of Patricia Thomas v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health (Patricia Thomas v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Patricia Thomas v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health, (4th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2161 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2161

PATRICIA ANN THOMAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:21-cv-02256-MGL)

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patricia Ann Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Lillian Marshall Coleman Newton, BETTIS LAW GROUP, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2161 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Patricia Ann Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s order. Thomas v. S.C. Dep’t of Mental Health, No. 3:21-cv-02256 (D.S.C. Oct. 19,

2023). In addition, we decline to consider either claims raised for the first time on appeal,

see Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993), or claims not raised in Thomas’s

informal brief, see Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

D.P. Muth J.P. Muth v. United States
1 F.3d 246 (Fourth Circuit, 1993)
Samuel Jackson v. Joseph Lightsey
775 F.3d 170 (Fourth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Patricia Thomas v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patricia-thomas-v-south-carolina-department-of-mental-health-ca4-2024.