Samuel Mwabira-Simera v. Arthur Edmondson, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1097
SAMUEL MWABIRA-SIMERA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER ARTHUR L. EDMONDSON, JR.; SUPERVALU, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-1274
SAMUEL MWABIRA-SIMERA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUPERVALU, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
OFFICER ARTHUR L. EDMONDSON, JR.,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-00652-CCB)
Submitted: June 25, 2013 Decided: July 10, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
No. 13-1097 dismissed; No. 13-1274 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Samuel Mwabira-Simera, Appellant Pro Se. Valerie Ann Thompson,
BALTIMORE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Towson, Maryland; Christopher
Redmond Dunn, DECARO, DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS,
LLP, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Samuel Mwabira-Simera
appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions to
compel and for appointment of counsel, and granting SuperValu’s *
motion for sanctions or for summary judgment and dismissing the
case.
We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). When a
notice of appeal is premature, the jurisdictional defect can be
cured if the district court enters a final judgment prior to our
consideration of the appeal under the doctrine of cumulative
finality. Equip. Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers,
973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir. 1992). However, not all
premature notices of appeal are subject to the cumulative
finality rule; instead, this doctrine applies only if the
appellant appeals from an order that the district court could
have certified for immediate appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005). Appeals
from “clearly interlocutory decision[s]” like “discovery
ruling[s] or . . . sanction[s]” cannot be saved under cumulative
*
Officer Edmondson was dismissed as a party in state court;
he was never served, and has not filed a brief or otherwise
participated in this case on the federal level.
3
finality. Id. at 288. Here, because Mwabira-Simera appeals the
district court’s order denying his discovery requests and for
appointment of counsel, the cumulative finality rule cannot
apply and Mwabira-Simera’s appeal is therefore interlocutory.
Accordingly, we grant SuperValu’s motion to dismiss No. 13-1097
as interlocutory.
Upon our review of the record, we find no reversible
error in the district court’s dismissal of the action, or in any
of the preliminary rulings Mwabira-Simera seeks to challenge.
Accordingly, we affirm No. 13-1274 for the reasons stated by the
district court. Mwabira-Simera v. Edmondson, No. 1:12-cv-00652-
CCB (D. Md. Jan 2, 2013; Feb. 19, 2013; Feb. 27, 2013).
We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny
SuperValu’s motion to strike and for sanctions. 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.
No. 13-1097 DISMISSED
No. 13-1274 AFFIRMED
4