Richard R. Cadmus, Jr. v. Frederick County Sheriff'

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00053-MFU-JCH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000054358].. [16-2173]

Appeal: 16-2173

Doc: 23

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2173

RICHARD R. CADMUS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FREDERICK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; ROBERT T. WILLIAMSON,
Sheriff; LEONARD MILHOLLAND, Former Winchester City Sheriff;
ELIZABETH KELLAS BURTON, Judge; JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (5:15-cv-00053-MFU-JCH)

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard R. Cadmus, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rosalie Fessier, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH,
THOMAS & MOSES, PC, Staunton, Virginia; Erin Rose McNeill, Assistant Attorney
General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2173

Doc: 23

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Richard R. Cadmus, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s report dismissing some of Cadmus’ claims with prejudice and others
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). We conclude that the order Cadmus seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y,
Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction, and remand to the district court with instructions to allow Cadmus
to file an amended complaint. 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 AND REMANDED

2