Reginald Evans v. Carolina Richardson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-03202-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000087880]. Mailed to: appellant. [17-1144]

Appeal: 17-1144

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1144

REGINALD D. EVANS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLINA RICHARDSON, Treasurer for Sumter County, South Carolina;
SUMTER COUNTY, South Carolina,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-03202-JFA)

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., DAVIDSON &
LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1144

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Reginald Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting in part the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint.
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, 545-47 (1949). Because the
deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended
complaint, * 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, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to
the district court with instructions to allow Evans 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
*

The district court’s order makes clear that some of Evans’ claims may not be
saved through amendment, and he may realistically only state a plausible claim for relief
with regard to his Fourteenth Amendment claims. This split judgment does not provide
us with jurisdiction to consider Evans’ appeal. See Waugh Chapel S., LLC v. United
Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 27, 728 F.3d 354, 359 (4th Cir. 2013).

2