Anthony James v. Cody Daniels

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2024
• Docket: 23-2217
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2217 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2217

ANTHONY GLENN JAMES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CODY L. DANIELS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (2:22-cv-01444-TMC)

Submitted: May 30, 2024 Decided: June 3, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Glenn James, Appellant Pro Se. Gordon Wade Cooper, BUYCK LAW FIRM, LLC, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2217 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Glenn James seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying James’ motion for summary judgment on

the claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). The order James seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order. ∗ 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 has since entered a final order in this case based on the parties’ settlement of the claims, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure the jurisdictional defect. See, e.g., 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)).