Thomas C. Wilson v. Sally Ann Chickering

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:16-cv-01579-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999992643]. Mailed to: Thomas Clay Wilson CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 3841 Leeds Avenue Charleston, SC 29405-0000. [16-7185]

Appeal: 16-7185

Doc: 20

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7185

THOMAS C. WILSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SALLY ANN CHICKERING,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate
Judge. (0:16-cv-01579-TMC)

Submitted:

December 20, 2016

Decided:

December 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Clay Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7185

Doc: 20

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Thomas Clay Wilson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
report recommending that the district court dismiss his civil
action without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

After

Wilson filed his notice of appeal, the district court adopted
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the action
without prejudice.

Wilson has not filed an amended notice of

appeal.
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).
final

When a notice of appeal is premature, the entry of

judgment

can

cure

the

resulting

jurisdictional

defect

under the doctrine of cumulative finality, but only if the order
appealed could have been certified for immediate appeal pursuant
to Rule 54(b).

In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir.

2005); Equip. Fin. Grp. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d
345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992).
The report and recommendation Wilson seeks to appeal is
neither

a

final

order

nor

an

appealable

interlocutory

or

collateral order.

See Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1219

(10th Cir. 1999).

Because the district court could not have

certified

the

report

and

recommendation
2

for

immediate

appeal

Appeal: 16-7185

under

Doc: 20

Rule

Filed: 12/22/2016

54(b),

Pg: 3 of 3

the

cumulative

we

dismiss

finality

doctrine

does

not

lack

of

apply.
Accordingly,
jurisdiction.

the

appeal

for

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

3