U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1998

Dodson v. Reston Security

Dodson v. Reston Security
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 2, 1998

Dodson v. Reston Security

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2403

KENNETH WAYNE DODSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

RESTON SECURITY OFFICE, Defendant - Appellee, and NATIONAL IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Barry R. Poretz, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-1826-A)

Submitted: May 12, 1998 Decided: June 2, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Wayne Dodson, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Celia Ballow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Kenneth Wayne Dodson noted an appeal of a proceeding held on September 5, 1997, in which the magistrate judge deferred deciding the issue of damages associated with a default judgment and instead inquired into the sufficiency of service. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Dodson's informal brief only addresses whether the magistrate judge erred by refusing to hear argument on proof of damages at the September 5, 1997, hearing. Dodson did not appeal the final judg- ment. Because Dodson only challenges the hearing in his informal brief, it is the only issue reviewable on appeal. See 4th Cir. Local R. 34(b).

Although this appeal was interlocutory when filed, the dis- trict court's entry of judgment before consideration of the appeal confers jurisdiction on this court under the doctrine of cumulative finality. See Equipment Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992). We find that the magis- trate judge did not err in inquiring into the propriety of service, a jurisdictional matter, rather than assessing damages. According- ly, we affirm.

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.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.