Carl McAdoo v. US, No. 14-1264 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1264 CARL E. MCADOO, as Executor of the Estate of Charles Raford McAdoo, Sr., Plaintiff Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SONNY W. TUCKER, JR., Dr.; SANDY F. PIERCE, PA; RUTHERFORD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; JOHN CARROLL; VIC MARTIN; ANN PADGETT; JOYCE ANN NASH, all individuals sued in official and personal capacity, all defendants sued jointly and severally, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00328-MR-DLH) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: July 28, 2014 Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl E. McAdoo, Appellant Pro Se. Allison C. Carroll, Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina; Sean Francis Perrin, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; John E. Rogers, II, WARD LAW FIRM, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Carl E. McAdoo seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing without prejudice his action prosecute the claims of a decedent s estate. dismissed for failure magistrate judge. over final to obtain counsel seeking to The district court as directed by the This court may exercise jurisdiction only 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). is neither a final order The order McAdoo seeks to appeal nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as McAdoo may be able to save his action by obtaining counsel. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.