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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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