Shaun Brown v. USDA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-01377-LO-MSN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000302229]. Mailed to: J. Brown; S. Brown; A. Lavin, Esq. [18-1182]

Appeal: 18-1182

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/29/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1182

SHAUN BROWN; JENEVER BROWN; JOBS VIRGINIA COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JOBS, (JOBS),
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, (USDA); WILLIAM
STRONG, in his official and individual capacity; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, (VDH),
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01377-LO-MSN)

Submitted: May 24, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaun Brown and Jenever Brown, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: May 29, 2018

Appeal: 18-1182

Doc: 16

Filed: 05/29/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Shaun Brown, Jenever Brown, and Jobs Virginia Community Development Corp.
seek to appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to appoint counsel. 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). The order Appellants
seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 965 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding “that orders denying
motions for appointment of counsel in civil cases are not subject to interlocutory
appeals”). * Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

*

Although the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice before we
considered this appeal, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure the jurisdictional
defect. Equip. Fin. Grp. v. Traverse Comput. Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir.
1992) (holding that doctrine of cumulative finality only applies where order appealed could
have been certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); see In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th
Cir. 2005) (noting that “a premature notice of appeal from a clearly interlocutory decision”
cannot be saved under doctrine of cumulative finality (internal quotation marks omitted)).
2