Carston Woodson v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for default judgment [1000047999-2]; denying Motion for other relief [1000047995-2], denying Motion for other relief [1000047994-2]; denying Motion to deconsolidate/sever [1000047992-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000047981-2] Originating case number: 3:17-cv-00046-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000090208]. Mailed to: C. Woodson. [17-1255, 17-1257, 17-1259, 17-1260, 17-1261, 17-1262, 17-1263]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1255 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/30/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1255 CARSTON MARKEL WOODSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 17-1257 CARSTON MARKEL WOODSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 17-1259 CARSTON MARKEL WOODSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Appeal: 17-1255 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/30/2017 Pg: 2 of 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 17-1260 CARSTON MARKEL WOODSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 17-1261 CARSTON MARKEL WOODSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 17-1262 CARSTON MARKEL WOODSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, 2 Appeal: 17-1255 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/30/2017 Pg: 3 of 4 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 17-1263 CARSTON MARKEL WOODSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00046-HEH; 3:17-cv-00047HEH; 3:17-cv-00048-HEH; 3:17-cv-00049-HEH; 3:17-cv-00050-HEH; 3:17-cv-00051HEH; 3:17-cv-00052-HEH;) Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 30, 2017 Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carton Markel Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 Appeal: 17-1255 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/30/2017 Pg: 4 of 4 PER CURIAM: Carston Markel Woodson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 (2012), for failing to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 12(h)(3). 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). Because the district court identified deficiencies that Woodson may remedy by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Woodson 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 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We “remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow [Woodson] to amend his complaint.” Goode, 807 F.3d at 630. We also deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny Woodson’s motions to deconsolidate his seven nearly identical cases, “to invoke the law of disqualification force,” to set aside the order to dismiss the complaints, and for default judgment. DISMISSED AND REMANDED 4

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?