USCA4 Appeal: 25-1176 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1176

MARK KIRBY, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Jane Kirby, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JANE KIRBY, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE ACCIDENT FUND, Et Al., Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (3:24-cv-03586-JDA)

Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 28, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Kirby, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1176 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Mark Kirby, on behalf of the estate of his wife, appeals the district court’s order (1) adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Kirby’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in which he raised constitutional violations centered around a work-related injury his wife suffered prior to her death, and (2) denying his motion to remand the action to state court. Kirby also appeals the district court’s order denying in part and granting in part his motion for reconsideration and amending the dismissal order to be without prejudice. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s determination that the South Carolina State Accident Fund was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and that remand to the state court was not warranted. Nor do we discern any abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of the remaining claims raised in Kirby’s postjudgment motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm. Kirby v. S.C. State Accident Fund, No. 3:24-cv-03586-JDA (D.S.C. filed Feb. 11, 2025 & entered Feb.

12, 2025; Feb. 24, 2025). 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The district court’s amended order is final appealable because the court did not grant leave to amend. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order). In addition, although Kirby did not file a notice of appeal after the court amended the dismissal order and ruled on the motion for reconsideration, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), we have jurisdiction because Kirby filed his informal brief in this court within the applicable appeal period. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992).