Circuit Judge Gregory and his counterparts are wholly aware that the jurisdiction of the U.S. Courts of Appeals extends only to review of final decisions of the district courts; Circuit Judge Gregory and his counterparts were also wholly aware that the district courtâ€™s deficient and unsupported Order and Judgment pursuant to grant and denial of Summary Judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not final based on the district courtâ€™s failure to acknowledge and/or apply Rule 56 and its standard of review; its failure to set forth facts; its failure to acknowledge and/or conduct the mandated de novo of my explicit objections to the magistrate judgeâ€™s Report and Recommendation; its failure to address my two cross-motions for Summary Judgment; its failure to address/acknowledge Title VII Statute 42 U.S.C. Â§ 2000e et seq (lawsuit cause of action); its failure to acknowledge reviewing the magistrate judgeâ€™s recommendations; its failure to apply conclusions of law; its denial of my unaddressed and undisputed motions for summary judgment; its inappropriate grant of summary judgment to defendant subsequent to defendant filing an admission that genuine issues of material facts were still in dispute which precluded grant of summary judgment under Rule 56; its failure to determine whether I had been illegally terminated; its loss of jurisdiction and subject matter due to its failure to follow statutory procedures; and, its entry of a Void Order and Judgment affirmatively controverted by the entire case record.
Based on the aforementioned facts, affirmatively supported by the case record (Appeal No. 07-1898/4:05-cv-02727-TLW), Circuit Judge Gregory and his counterparts did not have the jurisdictional authority to enter a decision pursuant to the district courtâ€™s unsupported and, therefore, non-final judgment.
Circuit Judge Gregory and his counterparts failed to remand the case back to the district court for lawful adjudication; Circuit Judge Gregory and his counterparts also failed to return my Informal Appeal Brief with notification informing me that the district courtâ€™s Order and Judgment were not final and accordingly non-appealable. Contrarily, Circuit Judge Gregory and his counterparts pretended the Order and Judgment were final; and, acting without jurisdictional authority, Circuit Judge Gregory and his counterparts without addressing the issues and supporting facts in my Appeal Brief â€œaffirmedâ€ the district courtâ€™s Judgment; whereby Circuit Judge Gregory and his counterparts filed a brief and vague per curiam opinion that in its entirety deceptively stated â€œWe have reviewed the record and find no reversible error; we dispense without oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.â€
It was impossible for Circuit Judge Gregory (and the other 2 panel judges) to apply legal contentions to the district courtâ€™s brief deceptive Order that was devoid of application and/or compliance with Rule 56, finding of facts, reasoning, and/or applicable legal conclusions. Additionally, the evidential record (material before the court) wholly and affirmatively controverted Circuit Judge Gregoryâ€™s (and the other 2 panel judges) curiam opinion and the district courtâ€™s Order and Judgment; both (Order and Opinion) were wholly devoid of â€œlegal contentionsâ€.
On February 25, 2008, I filed an explicit evident-base Petition for Rehearing that was unaddressed; yet, denied by Circuit Judge Gregory (and the other 2 panel judges) on April 18, 2008.
The denial Order merely stated:
â€œThe Court denies the petition for rehearing. Entered at the direction of the panel: Judge Motz, Judge Gregory, and Judge Duncan.â€
As affirmed by the corresponding evidential record, Circuit Judge Gregory (and the other 2 panel judges) unsupported opinion and unconstitutional Judgment in Case No 07-1898/Civil Action No. 4:05-cv-02727-TLW-TER (Roslyn Holman v. Clemson University) procured by criminal fraud, constituted willful deprivation of my civil and constitutional rights under color of law; accordingly, on June 23, 2009, I filed a Civil Rights lawsuit pursuant to Statute 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 against Circuit Judge Roger L. Gregory, (his counterparts) Circuit Judges Diana Gribbon Motz and Allyson K. Duncan, District Judge Terry L. Wooten, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, defendant Clemson University, attorney James W. Logan Jr., Court Reporter/Deputy Clerk Shari L. Stefano, and Transcriber Cindy Lee Brunink.
As in prior Title VII case, the district and magistrate judges assigned to the Deprivation of Civil Rights case (No. 4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM) acting in conspiracy with the defendants violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to deprive me of due process and other civil and constitutional rights.
On July 7, 2009, the magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation for â€œPartial Summary Dismissalâ€ alleging entitlement to â€œimmunityâ€ for Circuit Judge Gregory (and the other 2 panel judges), the district judge and the magistrate judge.
On February 24, 2010, completely ignoring my explicitly detailed Objections with references to uncontroverted evidence in the record, and completely disregarding the magistrate judgeâ€™s unsupported â€œimmunityâ€ defense (affirmatively refuted in my Objections), the district judge entered an unconstitutional void Order illegally based on prior void Orders and Judgment entered in my Title VII lawsuit which were the basis for the civil rights lawsuit. The prior Orders and Judgment before the court were disregarded without adjudication. The district judgeâ€™s (C. Weston Houck) inconclusive and insufficient Order deceptively stated:
â€œIn her objections, the plaintiff generally makes the same arguments here that were considered and rejected by the magistrate judge. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge's report and the record in this case, the court adopts the report and recommendation and it is incorporated herein by reference.â€
My unaddressed deprivation of civil rights claims against Circuit Judge Roger L. Gregory, (his counterparts) Circuit Judges Diana Gribbon Motz and Allyson K. Duncan and the district courtâ€™s district and magistrate judges were unconstitutionally dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process.
On October 26, 2010, I filed a Rule 60(b)(4) and (b)(6) Motion, (to the attention of the chief judge of the district court) requesting that the district Court vacate its void Orders and Judgment. On February 18, 2011, the chief judge (David C. Norton) abused his discretion by willfully denying my uncontroverted Motion thereby failing to vacate affirmative Void Orders and Judgment procured by fraud upon the court by the court.