Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Richardson v. Berkeley Cnty Deten, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Daniel Deno Richardson. The district court had dismissed Richardson's civil rights complaint without prejudice based on a recommendation from a magistrate judge. Richardson argued on appeal that his objections to the magistrate's report were timely filed. The appeals court assumed without deciding that Richardson's objections were timely, but dismissed the appeal anyway because the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not a final order, and Richardson could still amend his complaint. Therefore, the appeals court did not have jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Richardson v. Berkeley Cnty Deten, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Daniel Deno Richardson. The district court had dismissed Richardson's civil rights complaint without prejudice based on a recommendation from a magistrate judge. Richardson argued on appeal that his objections to the magistrate's report were timely filed. The appeals court assumed without deciding that Richardson's objections were timely, but dismissed the appeal anyway because the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not a final order, and Richardson could still amend his complaint. Therefore, the appeals court did not have jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-12-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7095

    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 is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Daniel Deno Richardson. The district court had dismissed Richardson's civil rights complaint without prejudice based on a recommendation from a magistrate judge. Richardson argued on appeal that his objections to the magistrate's report were timely filed. The appeals court assumed without deciding that Richardson's objections were timely, but dismissed the appeal anyway because the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not a final order, and Richardson could still amend his complaint. Therefore, the appeals court did not have jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views3 pages

    Richardson v. Berkeley Cnty Deten, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Daniel Deno Richardson. The district court had dismissed Richardson's civil rights complaint without prejudice based on a recommendation from a magistrate judge. Richardson argued on appeal that his objections to the magistrate's report were timely filed. The appeals court assumed without deciding that Richardson's objections were timely, but dismissed the appeal anyway because the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not a final order, and Richardson could still amend his complaint. Therefore, the appeals court did not have jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-7095

    DANIEL DENO RICHARDSON,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    BERKELEY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.
    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (CA-02-1261-9-23)

    Submitted:

    November 18, 2002

    Decided:

    December 11, 2002

    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Daniel Deno Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel Deno Richardson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000)
    complaint.

    Richardsons case was referred to a magistrate judge

    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (1994).


    recommended

    that

    Richardsons

    complaint

    The magistrate judge

    be

    dismissed

    without

    prejudice and advised Richardson that failure to file timely


    specific written objections to this recommendation could waive
    further

    judicial

    review,

    including

    appellate

    review

    recommendation is accepted by the district court.


    court

    adopted

    the

    magistrate

    judges

    if

    the

    The district

    recommendation

    given

    Richardsons apparent failure to respond to the magistrate judges


    report and recommendation.

    The record discloses that Richardsons

    response to the magistrate judges report was filed in the district


    court the same day the district court entered its order dismissing
    his complaint without prejudice.

    On appeal, Richardson contends

    that his objections were timely filed.


    Assuming, without deciding, that Richardsons response was
    timely filed and that his objections to the magistrate judges
    report were sufficiently specific, we nevertheless find that this
    appeal is interlocutory. The district court dismissed Richardsons
    complaint without prejudice.

    Because Richardson may be able to

    proceed with this action by amending his complaint, the dismissal


    order is not final and thus is not subject to appellate review.

    See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d
    1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
    We therefore dismiss the appeal.

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like