Ronald Paul v. SC Dep't of Transportation, No. 13-2431 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2431 RONALD I. PAUL, Plaintiff Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; PAUL D. DE HOLCZER, individually and as a partner of the law firm of Moses, Koon & Brackett, PC; G. L. BUCKLES, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Keith J. Buckles and G. L. Buckles individually personal representative Keith J. Buckles; MICHAEL H. QUINN, Individually and as senior lawyer of Quinn Law Firm, LLC; J. CHARLES ORMOND, JR., individually and as partner of the Law Firm of Holler, Dennis, Corbett, Ormond, Plante & Garner; OSCAR K. RUCKER, in his individual capacity as Director, Rights of Way South Carolina Department of Transportation; MACIE M. GRESHAM, in her individual capacity as Eastern Region Right of Way Program Manager South Carolina Department of Transportation; NATALIE J. MOORE, in her individual capacity as Assistant Chief Counsel, South Carolina Department of Transportation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-01852-CMC) Submitted: April 30, 2014 Decided: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. May 14, 2014 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald I. Paul, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Ronald I. Paul seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting dismissing his prejudice motion. the and 42 the magistrate U.S.C. order judge s § 1983 denying recommendation (2006) his Fed. complaint R. Civ. and without P. 59(e) This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 54(b); Cohen v. 545-46 (1949). 28 U.S.C. Beneficial § 1292 Indus. (2012); Loan Fed. Corp., R. 337 Civ. U.S. P. 541, Because Paul may proceed with this action in the district court by amending his complaint to provide specific facts showing his entitlement to the relief he seeks, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), the orders he seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, jurisdiction. We we grant dismiss Paul s the motions appeal to file for lack of supplemental briefs and deny his motion for summary reversal, as amended. We also 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.