Reginald Evans v. York County Inc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:15-cv-04954-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999914315]. Mailed to: Reginald Evans P. O. Box 36751 Rock Hill, SC 29732. [16-1390]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1390 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1390 REGINALD EVANS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. YORK COUNTY INC.; ROCK HILL INC., CITY OF; BH MANAGEMENT; PACES RIVER APARTMENT; CLIFFORD BERINSKY; THOMAS I. HOWARD; BROWNLEE LAW FIRM PLLC; DINA D. BIGGS; ALYSSA PRUITT; LAND STAR TRANSPORTATION LOGISTIC INC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:15-cv-04954-JFA) Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-1390 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Reginald Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the dismissing recommendation his civil of the complaint. magistrate This court judge may and 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, 545-47 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied through the filing of an amended complaint averring sufficient facts in support of Evans’ claims, we conclude that the order Evans seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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 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?