Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Anthony G. Bryant, Petitioner v. Department of Education, et al.
Supreme Court briefApr 18, 2019
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
VTDB5!Bqqf b029.3375!!!!!!Epd;!32.3!!!!!!!!!!!!qrtie;!15l21B12: !!!!!!i;!2!p6
Uptbrthhft ;)5!p9*
FILED: April 10, 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2264(L)
(2:18-cv-022 17-MBS)
ANTHONY G. BRYANT
Plaintiff Appellant
-
V.
-
US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, FBI; ALCOHOL, FIREARMS, TOBACCO AND
EXPLOSIVES, ATF; DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Defendants Appellees
-
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; US MARSHALS
Defendants
No. 18-2265
(2:18-cv-02593-MBS)
ANTHONY G. BRYANT
Plaintiff Appellant
-
VTDB5!Bqqf b029.3375!!!!!!Epd;!32.3!!!!!!!!!!!!(Jrfie;!15112: !!!!!!Qi;!3!p6
Upibrlthhft ;)6!p9*
V.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; UNITED STATES
MARSHAL; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Defendants Appellees
-
and
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Defendant
No. 18-2266
(2:18-cv-02582-MBS)
ANTHONY G. BRYANT
Plaintiff Appellant
-
V.
UNITED STATES MARSHAL; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Defendants Appellees
-
No. 18-2267
(2:18-cv-0 143 6-MB S)
ANTHONY G. BRYANT
VTDB5!Bqqf b029.3375!!!!!!Epd;!32.3!!!!!!!!!!!!qfie;!15(21B12: !!!!!!;!4!p6
Upibrlthhft ;)7!p9*
Plaintiff Appellant
-
V.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, EPA; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES; US ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH
CAROLINA; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Defendants Appellees
-
No. 18-2268
(2:18-cv-00606-MBS)
ANTHONY G. BRYANT
Plaintiff Appellant
-
V.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR
THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES
Defendants Appellees
-
No. 18-2270
(2:18-cv-02738-MBS)
ANTHONY G. BRYANT
Plaintiff Appellant
-
V.
VTDB5!Bqqf br1129.3375!!!!!!Epd;!32.3!!!!!!!!!!!!(Jrt'ie;!151B12: !!!!!!;!5!p6
Upibñthhf t ;)8!p9
US SECRET SERVICE; US POSTAL SERVICE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES; US ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH
CAROLINA
Defendants Appellees
-
No. 18-2271
(2: 18-cv-02467-MBS)
ANTHONY G. BRYANT
Plaintiff Appellant
-
V.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, FCC; SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION
Defendants Appellees
-
No. 18-2337
(2:18-cv-02 159-MBS)
ANTHONY G. BRYANT
Plaintiff Appellant
-
I,,
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HOMELAND SECURITY;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; US ATTORNEY FOR
THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
VTDB5!Bqqf b029.3375!!!!!!Epd;!32.3!!!!!!!!!!!!qrfie;!151cB12: !!!!!!Qi;!6!p6
Upibrthhft ;)9!p9*
Defendants Appellees
-
No. 18-2373
(2:18-cv-00607-MBS)
ANTHONY G. BRYANT
Plaintiff Appellant
-
BRYANT GROUP INC
Plaintiff
V.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; BETH DRAKE, U.S. Attorney for the
District of South Carolina; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING &
URBAN DEVELOPMENT; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES
Defendants Appellees
-
JUDGMENT
In accordance with the decision of this court, the judgment of the district
court is affirmed.
This judgment shall take effect upon issuance of this court's mandate in
accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 41.
Is! PATRICIA S. CONNOR, CLERK
VTDB5!Bqqf b029.3375!!!!!!Epd;!31!!!!!!!!!!!!qrhe;!151cB12: !!!!!!i;!2!p7
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2264
ANTHONY G. BRYANT,
Plaintiff Appellant,
-
V.
US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, FBI; ALCOHOL, FIREARMS, TOBACCO AND
EXPLOSIVES, ATF; DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants Appellees,
-
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; US MARSHALS,
Defendants.
No. 18-2265
ANTHONY G. BRYANT,
Plaintiff Appellant,
-
V.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; UNITED STATES
MARSHAL; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Defendants Appellees,
-
VTDB5!Bqqf bn29.3375!!!!!!Epd;!31!!!!!!!!!!!!qrfie;!15112: !!!!!!1;!3!p7
and
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendant.
No. 18-2266
ANTHONY G. BRYANT,
Plaintiff Appellant,
-
V.
UNITED STATES MARSHAL; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendants Appellees.
-
No. 18-2267
ANTHONY G. BRYANT,
Plaintiff Appellant,
-
V.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, EPA; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES; US ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH
CAROLINA; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendants Appellees.
-
2
VTDB5!Bqqf b029.3375!!!!!!Epd;!31!!!!!!!!!!!!qrtie;!151cB12: !!!!!!;!4!p7
No. 18-2268
ANTHONY G. BRYANT,
Plaintiff Appellant,
-
V.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR
THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES,
Defendants Appellees.
-
No. 18-2270
ANTHONY G. BRYANT,
Plaintiff Appellant,
-
V.
US SECRET SERVICE; US POSTAL SERVICE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES; US ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH
CAROLINA,
Defendants Appellees.
-
No. 18-2271
ANTHONY G. BRYANT,
Plaintiff Appellant,
-
3
VTDBS!Bqqf b029.3375!!!!!!Epd;!31!!!!!!!!!!!!qrhe;!15c21tB12: !!!!!!i;!5!p7
V.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, FCC; SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Defendants Appellees.
-
No. 18-2337
ANTHONY G. BRYANT,
Plaintiff Appellant,
-
V.
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HOMELAND SECURITY;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; US ATTORNEY FOR
THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendants Appellees.
-
No. 18-2373
ANTHONY G. BRYANT,
Plaintiff Appellant,
-
and
BRYANT GROUP INC,
Plaintiff,
V.
4
VTDB5!Bqqf bq29.3375!!!!!!Epd;!31!!!!!!!!!!!!qrfie;!15112: !!!!!!;!6!p7
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; BETH DRAKE, U.S. Attorney for the
District of South Carolina; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING &
URBAN DEVELOPMENT; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES,
Defendants Appellees.
-
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cv-02217-MBS;
2: 18-cv-02593-MBS; 2:18-cv-02582-MBS; 2: 18-cv-01436-MBS; 2:18-cv-00606-MBS;
2: 18-cv-02738-MBS; 2:18-cv-02467-MBS; 2:18-cv-02159-MBS; 2:18-cv-00607-MBS)
Submitted: March 29, 2019
Decided: April 10, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony G. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
VTDB5!Bqqfbr129.3375!!!!!!Epd;!31!!!!!!!!!!!!qrhe;!151IB12: !!!!!!i;!7!p7
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Anthony G. Bryant seeks to appeal the district
court's orders dismissing his civil complaints against a variety of federal agencies,
entities, and officials. The court referred the cases to a magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaints
be dismissed and advised Bryant that failure to timely file specific objections to each
recommendation could waive appellate review of the district court's orders based upon
such recommendations. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge's
recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that
recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of
noncompliance.
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). "In order to preserve for appeal an issue in a
magistrate judge's report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that
issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true
ground for the objection." Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal
quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 738 (2018).
Bryant has waived appellate review of all of the district court's orders by failing to
file specific objections after receiving proper notice in each case. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court's judgments. 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
rel
2:18-cv-02217-MBS Date Filed 10/22/18 Entry Number 36 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Anthony G. Bryant,
C/A No. 2:18-2217-MBS
Plaintiff,
VS.
ORDER AND OPINION
US Department of Education,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives,
Drug Enforcement Administration,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Anthony G. Bryant, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
complaint on August 13, 2018. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02,
D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for pretrial
handling.
The Magistrate Judge reviewed the allegations of the complaint, as amended on August 20,
2018, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and the court's inherent authority to dismiss frivolous
cases. The Magistrate Judge observed that the allegations of the complaint are nonsensical and
incoherent, and that (1) Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) the
complaint lacks any arguable basis in law or in fact, and therefore is frivolous; (3) the allegations are
so disconnected and incoherent that it appears subject matter jurisdiction is lacking; and (4)
Plaintiff's claims against Defendants US Department of Education; Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives; and Drug Enforcement Administration are barred by the
doctrine of sovereign immunity. Thus, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation
on October 5, 2018, recommending that Plaintiff's complaint be summarily dismissed. Plaintiff filed
2:18-cv-02217-MBS Date Filed 10/22/18 Entry Number 36 Page 2 of 2
objections to the Report and Recommendation on October 5, 2018, October 9, 2018, October 10,
2018, October 12, 2018, October 15, 2018, and October 19, 2018.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making.a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. This court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been filed. Id However, the district court need
not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only general and conclusory objections that do
not direct the court to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and
recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir. 1982).
In this case, Plaintiff's objections are, like his complaint, not comprehensible. In the court's
view, the objections do not direct the court to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. Nevertheless, the court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs
in the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Plaintiff's complaint
is summarily dismissed without prejudice, and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Is! Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
October 19, 2018
2
2:18-cv-02217-MBS Date Filed 10/22/18 Entry Number 37 Page 1 of 1
AO 450 (SCD 04/2010) Judgment in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
District of South Carolina
Anthony G. Bryant
Plaintiff
V.
U.S. Department of Education, Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and
Explosive (ATF), Drug Enforcement Administration
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.
2:1 8-cv-022 17-MBS
Defendants
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION
The court has ordered that (check one).
the plaintiff (name)
__________
recover from the defendant (name)
which includes prejudgment interest at the rate of
the amount of
%, plus postjudgment interest at the rate of
dollars ($_J,
%, along with
costs.
iJ the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)
recover costs from the plaintiff (name)
• other: Plaintiff, Anthony G. Bryant, shall take nothing of Defendants—U.S. Department of Education, Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosive (ATF), Drug Enforcement Administration—as
to the complaint and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
This action was (check one):
IJ tried by a jury, the Honorable
1 tried by the Honorable
presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict.
presiding, without a jury and the above decision was reached.
• decided by the Honorable Margaret B. Seymour, United States District Judge, presiding. The court having adopted
the Report and Recommendation set forth by the Honorable Mary Gordon Baker, United States Magistrate Judge.
Date: October 22, 2016
ROBJNL. BLUME, CLERK OF COURT
s/S. Samsa
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Additional material
from this filing is
available in the
Clerk's Office.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.