Sylvester Harding, III v. R. Roush, No. 13-7390 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7390 SYLVESTER E. HARDING, III, Plaintiff Appellant, v. CAPTAIN R. ROUSH; LIEUTENANT D. BULLARD; CLAYTON RICHARD, U. S. Supreme Court; OFFICER A. BROWN; BILLY WEST, Cumberland County District Attorney; ROBBIE DICK; CLAIRE HILL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-ct-03136-FL) Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sylvester E. Harding, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sylvester court s order without prejudice * E. Harding, dismissing his pursuant 42 to III, appeals U.S.C. 28 the § 1983 U.S.C. district (2006) action § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012) for failure to state a claim, and its order denying his motion for motions. reconsideration and various related post-judgment On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Harding s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court s dispositions, Harding has forfeited appellate review of the court s orders. Accordingly, we district court s judgment and post-judgment order. affirm the 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. AFFIRMED * Based on the district judge s opinion, we conclude that the dismissal was without prejudice, despite a statement to the contrary in the court s text order denying reconsideration. Although dismissals without prejudice generally are interlocutory and not appealable, here the court s order of dismissal is a final one, as the grounds for dismissal indicate that Harding could not save his action by merely amending his complaint. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 2

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.