John Crandell, III v. Hardy County Rural Development ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1817
JOHN OSBORNE CRANDELL, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARDY COUNTY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Elkins. Michael John Aloi, Magistrate Judge. (2:18-cv-00087-MJA)
Submitted: February 18, 2021 Decided: February 22, 2021
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Osborne Crandell, III, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Clee Chenoweth, Peter G. Zurbuch,
BUSCH, ZURBUCH & THOMPSON, PLLC, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Osborne Crandell, III, seeks to appeal several orders entered by the magistrate
judge in this civil action, including the January 23, 2020 order dismissing in part Crandell’s
second amended complaint and the June 26, 2020 order awarding summary judgment to
the Hardy County Rural Development Authority (the “HCRDA”). 1 This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it
has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that the magistrate judge did not adjudicate all of
the claims alleged in the second amended complaint. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the
magistrate judge never resolved Crandell’s breach of contract claim related to the
HCRDA’s attempt to forcibly repurchase Crandell’s property. 2 We thus conclude that the
orders Crandell seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or
1
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 636(c).
2
The magistrate judge concluded that Crandell’s first amended complaint stated a
plausible breach of contract claim related to the HCRDA’s attempt to forcibly repurchase
Crandell’s property. Although Crandell thereafter filed a second amended complaint, it
contains identical allegations regarding the attempted repurchase. Thus, liberally
construed, the second amended complaint alleges a breach of contract claim predicated on
the attempted forcible repurchase.
2
collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand
to the magistrate judge for consideration of the unresolved claim. Id. at 699.
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 AND REMANDED
3