Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Edward Bryan v. SCDC, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal by Edward Bryan of a district court order accepting a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Bryan's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice. The appellate court found it did not have jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under other exceptions. As the deficiencies in the complaint could potentially be remedied, the dismissal was not considered an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-03-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-8092

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal by Edward Bryan of a district court order accepting a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Bryan's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice. The appellate court found it did not have jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under other exceptions. As the deficiencies in the complaint could potentially be remedied, the dismissal was not considered an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    Edward Bryan v. SCDC, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal by Edward Bryan of a district court order accepting a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Bryan's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice. The appellate court found it did not have jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under other exceptions. As the deficiencies in the complaint could potentially be remedied, the dismissal was not considered an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-8092

    EDWARD BRYAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    SCDC,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (3:12-cv-01874-RBH)

    Submitted:

    March 26, 2013

    Decided:

    March 28, 2013

    Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Edward Sabari Bryan, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Edward
    courts
    judge

    order

    and

    Sabari

    accepting

    dismissing

    Bryan
    the

    his

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    recommendation

    42

    U.S.C.

    of

    1983

    the
    the

    district
    magistrate

    (2006)

    complaint

    without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b) (2006).

    This court

    may

    28

    exercise

    jurisdiction

    only

    over

    final

    orders,

    U.S.C.

    1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,


    28

    U.S.C.

    Beneficial

    1292

    Indus.

    (2006);
    Loan

    Fed.

    Corp.,

    R.

    Civ.

    P.

    54(b);

    337

    U.S.

    541,

    Cohen

    545-47

    v.

    (1949).

    Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be


    remedied by the filing of a complaint that cures the defects
    noted

    by

    courts

    the

    district

    order

    is

    court,

    neither

    we

    conclude

    final

    interlocutory or collateral order.

    order

    that
    nor

    the
    an

    district

    appealable

    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.
    dispense

    with

    contentions

    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like