Gary Alan Glass v. Anne Arundel County

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01901-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000005372].. [15-2594]

Appeal: 15-2594

Doc: 36

Filed: 01/18/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2594

GARY ALAN GLASS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY; MARK COLLIER, Individually and in his
official capacity as an Anne Arundel County Police Officer;
JAMES E. TEARE, SR., Individually and in his official
capacity as an Anne Arundel County Chief of Police; UNKNOWN
COUNTY EMPLOYEE X,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JAMES SCOTT DAVIS, Individually and in his official capacity
as an Anne Arundel County Police Department Lieutenant;
CHRISTINE RYDER, Individually and in her official capacity
as an Anne Arundel County Police Department Central Records
Manager; BRENDA FRASER, Individually and in her official
capacity as an Anne Arundel County Police Department Central
Records Deputy Manager; JOHN GILMER, Individually and in his
official
capacity
as
an
Anne
Arundel
County
Police
Department Sergeant,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:12-cv-01901-JFM)

Submitted:

December 16, 2016

Decided:

Before KING, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

January 18, 2017

Appeal: 15-2594

Doc: 36

Filed: 01/18/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cary J. Hansel, HANSEL LAW, PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant.
Nancy McCutchan Duden, County Attorney, Jay H.
Creech, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Annapolis, Maryland,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2594

Doc: 36

Filed: 01/18/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Gary Alan Glass seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting judgment as a matter of law to Mark Collier, one of
several

defendants

in

this

civil

rights

action.

Before

addressing the merits of Glass’ appeal, we first must be assured
that we have jurisdiction.
(4th Cir. 2015).

Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 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, 54546 (1949).

“Ordinarily, a district court order is not final

until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.”

Porter,

803 F.3d at 696 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b).

Generally, “a final decision is one that ends

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

Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent.

Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs & Participating
Emp’rs, 134 S. Ct. 773, 779 (2014) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Here, the district court stayed Glass’ claim against Anne
Arundel

County

(“the

County”)

alleged

in

Count

Four

of

his

complaint, and proceeded to discovery and trial on Glass’ claim
against Collier.

After the court granted judgment as a matter

of law to Collier, the court’s written order entered judgment in
3

Appeal: 15-2594

favor

Doc: 36

of

Filed: 01/18/2017

Collier,

but

was

Pg: 4 of 4

silent

as

to

the

stayed

claim.

Although the district court’s order closed the case, “even if a
district court believes it has disposed of an entire case, we
lack appellate jurisdiction where the court in fact has failed
to enter judgment on all claims.”

Porter, 803 F.3d at 696-97;

see also Lamp v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 1981),
(“Rule 54(b) . . . does not contemplate ‘implicit adjudication’
of

claims.”),

Goodrich

Co.,

abrogated

on

850

641

F.2d

other
(10th

grounds
Cir.

by,

Lewis

1988).

v.

Because

B.F.
the

district court’s order is silent as to the stayed claim, the
order Glass seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

See Porter, 803

F.3d at 699; see also Penn-Am. Ins. Co. v. Mapp, 521 F.3d 290,
295

(4th

Cir.

2008)

(noting

that

an

order

administratively

closing a case does not amount to a final, appealable order).
Accordingly,
jurisdiction.

we

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

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.

DISMISSED

4