Anthony Fred Martin v. Susan Duffy

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 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

-- 2 of 2 --