Gevara v. Bennett , 406 F. App'x 704 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7186
JORGE GEVARA, a/k/a Jorge Galeas, Jr.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BOYD BENNETT, Ex-Director of Prisons; F. B. HUBBARD,
Superintendent; CRUTCHFIELD, Assistant Superintendent of
Programs; WENDY BRANCH, Unit Manager; PERRITT, Unit Manager;
JOHN DOE, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; JOHN DOE, Facility
Classification Committee; R. HAMPTON, Investigating Officer
(now S.T.G. Officer); L. STAR, Correctional Officer,
Defendants – Appellees.
No. 10-7279
JORGE GEVARA, a/k/a Jorge Galeas, Jr.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BOYD BENNETT, Ex-Director of Prisons; F. B. HUBBARD,
Superintendent; CRUTCHFIELD, Assistant Superintendent of
Programs; WENDY BRANCH, Unit Manager; PERRITT, Unit Manager;
JOHN DOE, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; JOHN DOE, Facility
Classification Committee; R. HAMPTON, Investigating Officer
(now S.T.G. Officer); L. STAR, Correctional Officer,
Defendants – Appellees.
No. 10-7386
JORGE GEVARA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BOYD BENNETT, Ex-Director of Prisons; F. B. HUBBARD,
Superintendent; CRUTCHFIELD, Assistant Superintendent of
Programs; WENDY BRANCH, Unit Manager; PERRITT, Unit
Manager; JOHN DOE, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; R.
HAMPTON, Investigating Officer (Now S.T.G. Officer); L.
STAR, Correctional Officer,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge; L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. (1:09-
cv-00343-WO-LPA)
Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jorge Gevara, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper, Assistant
Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Jorge Gevara appeals the
district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
civil rights action without prejudice for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and the magistrate judge’s interlocutory
orders denying Gevara’s motions seeking leave to amend, to
reconsider, and for a certificate of appealability. * We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and the
magistrate judge. Gevara v. Bennett, No. 1:09-cv-000343-WO-LPA
(M.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2010; Aug. 30, 2010; Sept. 21, 2010).
We deny Gevara’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
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
*
Gevara’s appeals from the magistrate judge’s orders were
interlocutory when filed. The district court’s subsequent entry
of a final judgment permits review of the magistrate judge’s
orders under the doctrine of cumulative finality. See In re
Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005); Equip. Fin. Group,
Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir.
1992).
3