Daniel Watson v. Robert Adams

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cv-03436-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999781722].. [15-1706]

Appeal: 15-1706

Doc: 39

Filed: 03/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1706

DANIEL WATSON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
David W Watson, deceased,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT A ADAMS, in his individual capacity as a police
officer with the Town of Chesterfield; ERIC HEWETT, in his
individual capacity as Chief of Police for the Town of
Chesterfield; LESLIE DAVIS, in his individual capacity as
Lance Corporal with the South Carolina Highway Patrol; SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; CHESTERFIELD, TOWN OF,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
CHESTERFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (4:12-cv-03436-BHH)

Submitted:

March 18, 2016

Decided:

March 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-1706

Doc: 39

Filed: 03/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 6

Patrick J. McLaughlin, WUKELA LAW FIRM, Florence, South
Carolina, Franklin B. Joyner, Jr., JOYNER LAW FIRM, Cheraw,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew F. Lindemann, DAVIDSON &
LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1706

Doc: 39

Filed: 03/25/2016

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Daniel Watson (“Watson”), as personal representative of the
estate of David Watson (“David”), filed separate wrongful death
and survival actions against Robert Adams; Eric Hewitt; Leslie
Davis; the South Carolina Department of Public Safety; and the
Town

of

Chesterfield,

“Defendants”).

South

Carolina

(collectively,

Both cases arose from the same core of operative

facts and allegations related to Defendants’ Fourth Amendment
violations
contends

and

state

prompted

consolidated

in

consent

motion,

parties

and

the
on

law

torts

David’s
district
the

subject

against

David,

suicide.
court

ground

matter.

These

pursuant

that

they

In

which
cases

to

the

involved

response

Watson

to

were

parties’
the

same

Defendants’

identical motions in the two actions, the district court granted
summary judgment only in the wrongful death action.
Watson

now

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

denying his motion to alter or amend that judgment.
are

obliged

to

inquire

sua

sponte

into

matters

order

Because we
of

our

own

appellate jurisdiction, see Feldman v. Law Enf’t Assocs. Corp.,
752 F.3d 339, 346 (4th Cir. 2014), we directed the parties to
provide supplemental briefing addressing whether this appeal is
interlocutory.

For

the

reasons

appeal.

3

that

follow,

we

dismiss

the

Appeal: 15-1706

Doc: 39

We

may

Filed: 03/25/2016

exercise

Pg: 4 of 6

jurisdiction

28 U.S.C.

§ 1291

(2012),

collateral

orders,

28

and

U.S.C.

only

over

certain

§ 1292

final

orders,

interlocutory

(2012);

Fed.

R.

Civ.

and
P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54547 (1949).

“In the ordinary course a final decision is one that

ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the
court to do but execute the judgment.”
Cent.

Pension

Fund,

134

S.

Ct.

Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v.

773,

779

(2014)

(internal

quotation marks omitted).
Although

the

district

court

has

entered

judgment

in

Watson’s wrongful death action, it has not yet issued a final
order in the survival action with which it is consolidated.

In

Eggers v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 11 F.3d 35 (4th Cir. 1993), we
adopted

a

case-by-case

approach

to

determining

whether

a

judgment entered in one of several consolidated cases is final
and appealable, relying on concepts of finality encompassed in
28

U.S.C.

§ 1291.

determination

must

Id.
be

made

at

39.

by

We

seeking

recognized
guidance

that

from

the

several

factors, including “whether a case has been consolidated for all
purposes,
decision

such
on

one

as

for

claim

discovery
may

regarding the other claim.”

affect
Id.

4

and
the

trial,
rights

and
of

whether
the

the

parties

Appeal: 15-1706

Doc: 39

While

Filed: 03/25/2016

Watson

certification

argues

under

Fed.

Pg: 5 of 6

that

the

R.

appeal

Civ.

is

appropriate

P.

54(b)

and

for

Braswell

Shipyards, Inc. v. Beazer E., Inc., 2 F.3d 1331 (4th Cir. 1993),
Watson

did

not

seek,

and

the

district

court

did

not

grant,

certification for an interlocutory appeal under Rule 54(b) or 28
U.S.C.

§ 1292(b).

considerations

Nevertheless,

underlying

Rule

Eggers

54(b)

acknowledged

certification

relevant to the finality inquiry presented here.

that

may

be

See 11 F.3d at

39 n.5.
We have reviewed the parties’ arguments in view of Eggers
and

Braswell

Shipyards

interlocutory.

Watson’s

and

conclude

wrongful

that

death

and

the

appeal

survival

is

actions

were consolidated in the district court for all purposes.

The

issues presented in the parties’ original briefs — both related
to proximate causation and to the underlying Fourth Amendment
issues — are intertwined with those issues still pending before
the district court in the survival action.

Additionally, while

a retrial of the survival action ultimately could be required if
the causation issue raised in this appeal was wrongly decided,
we find that judicial economy weighs more strongly in favor of
postponing judicial review.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

we

oral

dismiss
argument

for

lack

because

5

of
the

jurisdiction.
facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-1706

Doc: 39

contentions

are

Filed: 03/25/2016

adequately

Pg: 6 of 6

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

6