Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sylvester Harding, III v. R. Roush, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of Sylvester Harding's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action for failure to state a claim. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's denial of Harding's motion for reconsideration and other post-judgment motions, as Harding did not challenge the bases for the district court's rulings in his informal brief. The appellate court concluded it was proper to affirm the district court's judgment and post-judgment order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-11-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7390

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of Sylvester Harding's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action for failure to state a claim. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's denial of Harding's motion for reconsideration and other post-judgment motions, as Harding did not challenge the bases for the district court's rulings in his informal brief. The appellate court concluded it was proper to affirm the district court's judgment and post-judgment order.

    Copyright:

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

    Sylvester Harding, III v. R. Roush, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of Sylvester Harding's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action for failure to state a claim. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's denial of Harding's motion for reconsideration and other post-judgment motions, as Harding did not challenge the bases for the district court's rulings in his informal brief. The appellate court concluded it was proper to affirm the district court's judgment and post-judgment order.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-7390

    SYLVESTER E. HARDING, III,


    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    CAPTAIN R. ROUSH; LIEUTENANT D. BULLARD; CLAYTON RICHARD,
    U. S. Supreme Court; OFFICER A. BROWN; BILLY WEST,
    Cumberland County District Attorney; ROBBIE DICK; CLAIRE
    HILL,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (5:12-ct-03136-FL)

    Submitted:

    November 21, 2013

    Decided:

    November 26, 2013

    Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Sylvester E. Harding, III, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Sylvester
    courts

    order

    without

    prejudice *

    E.

    Harding,

    dismissing

    his

    pursuant

    42
    to

    III,

    appeals

    U.S.C.
    28

    the

    1983

    U.S.C.

    district

    (2006)

    action

    1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

    (2012) for failure to state a claim, and its order denying his
    motion

    for

    motions.

    reconsideration

    and

    various

    related

    post-judgment

    On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised

    in the Appellants brief.

    See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

    Because

    Hardings informal brief does not challenge the bases for the
    district courts dispositions, Harding has forfeited appellate
    review

    of

    the

    courts

    orders.

    Accordingly,

    we

    district courts judgment and post-judgment order.

    affirm

    the

    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.

    AFFIRMED

    Based on the district judges opinion, we conclude that


    the dismissal was without prejudice, despite a statement to the
    contrary in the courts text order denying reconsideration.
    Although
    dismissals
    without
    prejudice
    generally
    are
    interlocutory and not appealable, here the courts order of
    dismissal is a final one, as the grounds for dismissal indicate
    that Harding could not save his action by merely amending his
    complaint.
    Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union
    392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

    You might also like