William El v. Greensboro Police Department, No. 16-2054 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2054 WILLIAM EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GREENSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT, A Corporation; WAYNE SCOTT, Chief of Police; STEVEN KORY FLOWERS, In His Individual and Official Capacity; NANCY B. VAUGHN, Mayor of Greensboro, In Her Official Capacity; GUILFORD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, A Corporation; MICHELLE MACADLO, In Her Individual and Official Capacity; HEATHER SKEENS, In Her Individual and Official Capacity; RON ORGIAS, In His Individual and Official Capacity; BILL BENCINI, Mayor of High Point, In His Official Capacity; HIGH POINT POLICE DEPARTMENT, A Corporation; MARTY SUMNER, Chief of Police, In His Own Capacity, Defendants - Appellees, and STEPHANIE REESE, In Her Individual and Official Capacity; C. E. JENKINS, In Official and Individual Capacity, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00014-TDS-JEP) Submitted: March 27, 2017 Decided: Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. April 28, 2017 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William El, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Clark, Associate General Counsel, Polly D. Sizemore, CITY OF GREENSBORO LEGAL DEPARTMENT, Greensboro, North Carolina; Matthew Livingston Mason, GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William dismissing El his seeks to appeal complaint the without district court’s as prejudice order seven to defendants and ordering a show of good cause for failure to properly court effect may service exercise on the other four only over jurisdiction defendants. final This 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). order El seeks to appeal is neither a final appealable interlocutory or collateral order. dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before order nor The an Accordingly, we We dispense with contentions this court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
