Nathaniel Hampton v. Paula Edgerton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2082
NATHANIEL HAMPTON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PAULA EDGERTON; ROBINA SCHENCK; CYNTHIA WILLIAMS; WILLIE
COLEMAN, Housing Authority of Florence,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (4:14-cv-04697-JMC)
Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016
Before GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Hampton, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Kirk Battle,
BATTLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Conway, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Hampton appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.
Hampton v. Edgerton, No. 4:14-cv-04697-JMC (D.S.C. Sept. 9,
2015). On appeal, Hampton argues that the district court erred
in its conclusion regarding his claims for: (1) interference
with his freedom of association; (2) retaliation; (3) civil
conspiracy; (4) a due process violation, and; (5) intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Regarding Hampton’s First Amendment claim, assuming,
without deciding, that Hampton had a fundamental right to
associate with his girlfriend, his right was not infringed upon
in this instance. Where government action implicates a
fundamental right, it will be subject to strict scrutiny only
where the action “interferes directly and substantially with the
fundamental right.” Waters v. Gaston Cty., 57 F.3d 422, 426
(4th Cir. 1995). Where government action has only an incidental
effect on a fundamental right, rational basis review applies.
Id.
The governmental policy at issue here did not prohibit
cohabitation with a nonmarital partner or forbid it altogether
without permission of the government. The governmental action
constituted “[a]t most, an unwelcome hurdle” to Hampton’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3
association with his girlfriend and is therefore subject to
rational basis review. Id. Under that standard, the policy
need only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental
interest. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 734 F.3d 344, 348-49 (4th Cir.
2013). We conclude that the government policy is permissible
under this standard of review.
We have reviewed the record and find no merit to Hampton’s
remaining contentions. Accordingly, although we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. 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

-- 3 of 3 --