Anthony Martin v. William Byar

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:13-cv-02067-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999283385]. Mailed to: Martin. [13-7639]

Appeal: 13-7639

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/24/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7639

ANTHONY FRED MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM BYARS; MICHAEL MCCALL; BRIAN DEGEORGIS;
ARROWOOD; TRAVIS THURBER; MS. SYNDER; BRANDON EICH,

DENNIS

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(4:13-cv-02067-DCN)

Submitted:

January 21, 2014

Decided: January 24, 2014

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Fred Martin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7639

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/24/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Anthony Fred Martin appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). *
reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and find no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.
(D.S.C. Sept. 23, 2013).

Martin v. Byars, No. 4:13-cv-02067-DCN
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 a dismissal without prejudice generally is
interlocutory and not appealable, because “the grounds for
dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint
could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case,” we conclude
that the order dismissing Martin’s complaint is an appealable
final order.
Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union
392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation
marks and alterations omitted).

2