Anthony Martin v. William Byars, No. 13-7639 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7639 ANTHONY FRED MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM BYARS; MICHAEL MCCALL; BRIAN DEGEORGIS; ARROWOOD; TRAVIS THURBER; MS. SYNDER; BRANDON EICH, DENNIS Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:13-cv-02067-DCN) Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Fred Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Fred Martin appeals the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). * reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. (D.S.C. Sept. 23, 2013). Martin v. Byars, No. 4:13-cv-02067-DCN 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 * While a dismissal without prejudice generally is interlocutory and not appealable, because the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiff s case, we conclude that the order dismissing Martin s complaint is an appealable final order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). 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.