The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
24-6721•Randy Johnson v. G. HALL, Grievance Coordinator, in their individual
24-6721Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 31, 2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6721
RANDY JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
G. HALL, Grievance Coordinator, in their individual and official capacity; STACY
RICHARDSON, Head Classification, in their individual and official capacity;
MELVIN WARREN, Acting Director, South Carolina Department of Probation,
Parole and Pardon Services, in their individual and official capacity; MATTHEW C.
BUCHANAN, General Counsel, in their individual and official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:24-cv-00351-DCN)
Submitted: July 31, 2025 Decided: October 31, 2025
Before GREGORY and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Randy Johnson appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and dismissing Johnson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim and denying his motion to alter or amend the
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. We have reviewed the record and discern no
reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Johnson’s motion to amend his informal brief,
deny his motion for the appointment of counsel, and affirm the district court’s orders. 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.