Sylvester Harding, III v. R. Roush
Opinion
Sylvester E. Harding, III, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action without prejudice * pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012) for failure to state a claim, and its order denying his motion for reconsideration and various related post-judgment motions. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Harding’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s dispositions, Harding has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and post-judgment order. 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 judge’s opinion, we conclude that the dismissal was without prejudice, despite a statement to the contrary in the court’s text order denying reconsideration. Although dismissals without prejudice generally are interlocutory and not appeal-able, here the court's 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).
Reference
- Full Case Name
- 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
- Status
- Unpublished