Loushonda Myers v. AT&T Corporation, No. 13-2214 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2214 LOUSHONDA MYERS; CM, a minor child; AM, a minor child; MM; TYRE MYERS; DAMEON MYERS; MARVIN MYERS, JR.; CHARLENA FRANKLIN; ERNEST MATTISON; SANDRA MATTISON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. AT&T CORPORATION; UNKNOWN AGENTS OF AT&T CORPORATION; US MARSHALS SERVICE; UNKNOWN AGENTS OF US MARSHAL SERVICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; UNKNOWN AGENTS OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; PAUL GARDNER; JEFFREY M. LONG; PATRICK J. MALEY; ROBERT WAIZENHOFFER; JEFFREY J. BRUNING; WILLIE HINDS; GEORGETOWN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; UNKNOWN OFFICERS, AGENTS OF GEORGETOWN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; 15TH CIRCUIT DRUG ENFORCEMENT UNIT, formerly Georgetown County Organized Crime Bureau; GREG HEMBREE; SCOTT HIXON; STEPHEN BROWN; MAGDELINE SALMENO; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, SLED; UNKNOWN LAW ENFORCEMENT SOURCES IN SOUTH CAROLINA; KERI POPE; KEENAN KEITH; RANDY GAMBLE; JIMMY CAGLE; JODY WARD; MICAH LEDDY; GEORGETOWN COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT; UNKNOWN OFFICERS, AGENTS OF GEORGETOWN COUNTY SHERIFF S OFFICE; BRYAN KONIG; JACK SCOVILLE; 15TH CIRCUIT SOLICITOR S OFFICE, Georgetown and Horry Counties; DAN FURR; KELVIN WAITES; SCOTT SCOGGIN; LANE CRIBB; UNKNOWN INFORMANTS AND-OR WITNESSES OF THE GCPD; NELSON BROWN; GLEN KUFEN; JERMAINE ARMSTRONG; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JOHN HILLIARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:13-cv-01432-RMG) Submitted: March 7, 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Loushonda Myers; CM; AM; MM; Tyre Myers; Dameon Myers; Marvin Myers, Jr.; Charlena Franklin; Ernest Mattison; Sandra Mattison, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: The Appellants seek to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing their civil complaint without prejudice and without service of process. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over 28 final orders, 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 Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Penn-America Ins. Co. v. Mapp, 521 F.3d 290, 294-96 (4th Cir. 2008); Go Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 508 F.3d 170, 176 (4th Cir. 2007); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, jurisdiction. we dismiss the appeal for lack of 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

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.