David Bach v. CIA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cv-04915-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999883721]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-1191]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1191 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/11/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1191 DAVID CHARLES BACH, a/k/a David Bach, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Kaymani D. West, Magistrate Judge. (4:15-cv-04915-MGL) Submitted: July 5, 2016 Decided: July 11, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Charles Bach, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-1191 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/11/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: David Charles Bach seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report recommending that his civil action be dismissed without prejudice. 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, 545-46 (1949). The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation Bach seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Furthermore, the district court’s adoption of the report and recommendation after Bach noted his appeal does not overcome the jurisdictional defect in Bach’s appeal because the magistrate judge’s report was not an order that the district court could have certified for immediate appeal. See Equip. Fin. Group v. Traverse Comput. Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding that doctrine of cumulative finality only applies where order appealed from could have been certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). jurisdiction. Accordingly, 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 2

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?