Samuel Mwabira-Simera v. Arthur Edmondson, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999036061-2] in 13-1097; denying Motion to strike [999124113-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999042150-2] in 13-1097, granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999055372-2] in 13-1274 Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00652-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999146428]. Mailed to: appellant. [13-1097, 13-1274]

Appeal: 13-1097

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/10/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1097

SAMUEL MWABIRA-SIMERA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER ARTHUR L. EDMONDSON, JR.; SUPERVALU, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-1274

SAMUEL MWABIRA-SIMERA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUPERVALU, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
OFFICER ARTHUR L. EDMONDSON, JR.,
Defendant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-00652-CCB)

Appeal: 13-1097

Doc: 20

Submitted:

Filed: 07/10/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

June 25, 2013

Decided:

July 10, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

No. 13-1097 dismissed; No. 13-1274 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

Samuel Mwabira-Simera, Appellant Pro Se.
Valerie Ann Thompson,
BALTIMORE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Towson, Maryland; Christopher
Redmond Dunn, DECARO, DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS,
LLP, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-1097

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/10/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Samuel Mwabira-Simera
appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

denying

his

motions

to

compel and for appointment of counsel, and granting SuperValu’s *
motion for sanctions or for summary judgment and dismissing the
case.
We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders
and

certain

interlocutory

and

collateral

orders.

Cohen

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949).

v.

When a

notice of appeal is premature, the jurisdictional defect can be
cured if the district court enters a final judgment prior to our
consideration of the appeal under the doctrine of cumulative
finality.

Equip. Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers,

973

345,

F.2d

premature
finality

347-48

notices
rule;

of

(4th

Cir.

1992).

appeal

are

subject

instead,

this

doctrine

However,
to

the

applies

not

all

cumulative

only

if

the

appellant appeals from an order that the district court could
have certified for immediate appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005).
from

“clearly

interlocutory

decision[s]”

like

Appeals

“discovery

ruling[s] or . . . sanction[s]” cannot be saved under cumulative
*

Officer Edmondson was dismissed as a party in state court;
he was never served, and has not filed a brief or otherwise
participated in this case on the federal level.

3

Appeal: 13-1097

Doc: 20

finality.

Filed: 07/10/2013

Id. at 288.

Pg: 4 of 4

Here, because Mwabira-Simera appeals the

district court’s order denying his discovery requests and for
appointment
apply

and

of

counsel,

the

Mwabira-Simera’s

cumulative

appeal

is

finality

therefore

rule

cannot

interlocutory.

Accordingly, we grant SuperValu’s motion to dismiss No. 13-1097
as interlocutory.
Upon our review of the record, we find no reversible
error in the district court’s dismissal of the action, or in any
of the preliminary rulings Mwabira-Simera seeks to challenge.
Accordingly, we affirm No. 13-1274 for the reasons stated by the
district court.

Mwabira-Simera v. Edmondson, No. 1:12-cv-00652-

CCB (D. Md. Jan 2, 2013; Feb. 19, 2013; Feb. 27, 2013).
We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
SuperValu’s motion to strike and for sanctions.

We deny

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.

No. 13-1097 DISMISSED
No. 13-1274 AFFIRMED

4