Paul Canady, II v. James Holder

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 7, 2023
• Docket: 22-1824
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1824 Doc: 39 Filed: 06/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1824

PAUL TRUETT CANADY, II, Administrator for the Estate of Jimmie Andrew Underwood, a/k/a James Blackmon, a/k/a James Blackman, a/k/a Jimmy Lee Hooker,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JAMES HOLDER, in his individual capacity; ANDREW MUNDAY, in his individual capacity; CITY OF RALEIGH,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00524-FL)

Argued: March 9, 2023 Decided: June 7, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: David S. Rudolf, PFEIFFER RUDOLF, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jason Robert Benton, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Sonya Pfeiffer, Joseph P. Lattimore, RUDOLF WIDENHOUSE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Daniel E. Peterson, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee James Holder. Rachel E. Keen, Sonny S. Haynes, WOMBLE BOND USCA4 Appeal: 22-1824 Doc: 39 Filed: 06/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee Andrew Munday. Norwood Pitt Blanchard, III, CROSSLEY MCINTOSH COLLIER HANLEY & EDES PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellee City of Raleigh.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1824 Doc: 39 Filed: 06/07/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

James Blackmon filed an action against James Holder, Andrew Munday, and the

City of Raleigh, bringing constitutional and state-law claims. The district court dismissed

some of the claims, and then Blackmon voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims and

appealed. We now dismiss the appeal because his voluntary dismissal of certain claims

without prejudice created a non-final and non-appealable split judgment over which this

Court lacks jurisdiction. See Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. 23, 27 (2017); Waugh

Chapel S., LLC v. United Food & Com. Workers Unions Loc. 27, 728 F.3d 354, 359 (4th

Cir. 2013); Poly-Med Inc. v. Novus Sci. PTE Ltd., 773 F. App’x 727, 727 (4th Cir. 2019).

We remand for such further proceedings, if any, as appropriate.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED