Carl McAdoo v. United States ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1938
CARL E. MCADOO,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (Department of Veterans Affairs)
in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and
Severally; DR. ERNEST T. AHL, JR., in Official and Personal
Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; DR. SONNY W. TUCKER,
JR., in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and
Severally; SANDY F. PIERCE, Physician Assistant, in
Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally;
RUTHERFORD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally;
JOHN CARROLL, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued
Jointly and Severally; VIC MARTIN, in Official and Personal
Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; ANN PADGETT, in
Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally;
JOYCE ANN NASH, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued
Jointly and Severally,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00239-MOC-DLH)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl E. McAdoo, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, Sr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Sean Francis
Perrin, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North
Carolina; John E. Rogers, II, WARD LAW FIRM, PA, Spartanburg,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Carl E. McAdoo seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing all defendants except Joyce Ann Nash in McAdoo’s
civil action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over
final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541,
545-46 (1949). The order McAdoo seeks to appeal is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
DISMISSED
3