Kenneth Lucero v. Wayne Early
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-01036-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-1305]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
WAYNE A. EARLY; MAYOR AND CITY
BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
December 22, 2015
February 5, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sean R. Day, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Nilson, Steven J. Potter, Glenn R. Marrow, Ashley E. McFarland,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Kenneth Lucero seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint against the
Police Department (collectively, “municipal Defendants”).
U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
Because Lucero’s claims against Officer Wayne Early remain
pending in the district court, the order Lucero seeks to appeal
is not a final order. *
Nor is it an appealable interlocutory or
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack
The parties dispute whether the claims against Officer
Early, contained in Counts 1, 4, and 5 of the amended complaint,
remain pending in the district court.
In those Counts, Lucero
challenged Officer Early’s enforcement of Baltimore’s policy
restricting leafletting in certain areas, including a claim that
Officer Early selectively enforced the policy based on the
viewpoint of the leafletters. We find that the district court’s
order is ambiguous regarding its finality.
Although the court
stated, “This action is dismissed,” it did not specifically
address the claims against Officer Early in its opinion and the
motion it granted only sought dismissal of the claims against
the municipal Defendants.
We conclude that the court’s
ambiguous order is insufficient to confer jurisdiction to this
See Reinholdson v. Minnesota, 346 F.3d 847, 849 (8th
Cir. 2003) (“To be final, an order or judgment must reflect some
clear and unequivocal manifestation by the trial court of its
belief that the decision made, so far as the court is concerned,
is the end of the case.” (brackets and internal quotation marks
Pg: 3 of 3
We dispense with oral argument because the
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?