Joe Logan, Sr. v. United States of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7582
JOE LOGAN, SR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:10-ct-03173-FL)
Submitted: January 28, 2013 Decided: February 12, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joe Logan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Joe Logan, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”)
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) motion.* On appeal, Logan argues that the district
court abused its discretion in rejecting his requests to reopen
discovery and for an enlargement of time. He also challenges
the district court’s conclusion that his FTCA claim is barred by
the discretionary function exception to sovereign immunity. See
18 U.S.C. § 2680(a) (2006). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error as to these issues. Accordingly, we
affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district
court. Logan v. United States, No. 5:10-ct-03173-FL (E.D.N.C.
Jan. 27, 2012 & Sept. 6, 2012). We deny Logan’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
* While we conclude that the district court erred in
construing Logan’s motion to alter or amend as a Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motion, we conclude this error was harmless, as Logan
cannot demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under Rule
59(e). See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d
396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (describing Rule 59(e) standard).

-- 2 of 2 --