UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2406
GERTRUDE CORETTA FENNELL HAMILTON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SUSANNA H. MURRAY; ERIC C. SCHWEITZER; CATHERINE B.
TEMPLETON; OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC;
DEPUTY CLERK MELISSA NEWMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:15-cv-02085-PMD)
Submitted: April 29, 2016 Decided: May 13, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gertrude Coretta Fennell Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gertrude Coretta Fennell Hamilton filed suit against the
opposing counsel and a federal district court deputy clerk
involved in her prior Americans with Disabilities Act suit. Her
instant complaint alleged fraud and other misconduct related to
the prior employment litigation. The district court dismissed
the suit as frivolous. Our review of the record and Hamilton’s
contentions on appeal reveal no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district
court. Hamilton v. Murray, No. 2:15-cv-02085-PMD (D.S.C. Oct.
14, 2015).
In addition, Hamilton sought to bring suit against a deputy
clerk of the court for errors and actions taken as part of her
employment. Judges possess absolute immunity for their judicial
acts and are subject to liability only in the “clear absence of
all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57
(1978). Similarly, court clerks enjoy derivative absolute
judicial immunity when they act in obedience to a judicial order
or under the court’s direction. McCray v. Maryland, 456 F.2d 1,
5 (4th Cir. 1972); see also Pink v. Lester, 52 F.3d 73, 78 (4th
Cir. 1995) (holding that causes of action against clerks of
court for negligent conduct impeding access to the courts cannot
survive). Moreover, to the extent Hamilton alleged that the
clerk acted intentionally, this fact alone, even if true, would
2
not deprive her of absolute quasi-judicial immunity from suit.
See Stump, 435 U.S. at 356 (holding that a judge may “not be
deprived of immunity because the action [taken] was in error,
was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority”).
Here, Hamilton’s claim is based on her confusion regarding
the docket sheet from her prior case. She alleges that the
clerk intentionally delayed entering the final order in her
prior case until the Defendants’ bankruptcy stay was in place in
order to prevent Hamilton’s appeal. However, although summary
judgment was granted on Hamilton’s claim in February 2009, the
clerk could not enter a final order until the counterclaim was
resolved. This is the delay of which Hamilton complains. It
was entirely proper and did not prevent her appeal. Moreover,
to the extent Hamilton claims that the bankruptcy stay prevented
her from timely appealing the underlying order, this claim was
raised and rejected in the prior proceeding.
Hamilton also avers that the court clerk improperly altered
the final court order. However, the alteration removed language
stating that Hamilton had agreed to the dismissal of the
counterclaim. Given that Hamilton herself complained of this
language, the alteration did not prejudice her. There is also a
notation that the final order was later modified to replace a
damaged document. Although Hamilton asserts that this was
3
wrongful and compensable conduct, she does not aver how this
modification was improper or how she was injured.
Thus, Hamilton’s claims against the court clerk consist of
assertions that she delayed entry of an order and improperly
altered another order. Our review of the prior case makes clear
that no procedural inconsistencies or damage to Hamilton
existed. Accordingly, the claims against the clerk were
properly dismissed as frivolous.
As such, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny
Hamilton’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
4