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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?