Ryan McFadyen v. Linwood Wilson, No. 14-1499 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1499 RYAN MCFADYEN; MATTHEW WILSON; BRECK ARCHER, Plaintiffs – Appellees, v. LINWOOD E. WILSON, Defendant – Appellant, and DUKE UNIVERSITY; DUKE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPT.; AARON GRAVES; ROBERT DEAN; LEILA HUMPHRIES; PHYLLIS COOPER; WILLIAM F. GARBER, III; JAMES SCHWAB; JOSEPH FLEMING; JEFFREY O. BEST; GARY N. SMITH; GREG STOTSENBERG; ROBERT K. STEEL; RICHARD H. BRODHEAD, PHD; PETER LANGE, PHD; TALLMAN TRASK, III, PHD; JOHN BURNESS; LARRY MONETA, ED.D.; DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEMS; PRIVATE DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC, P.L.L.C.; JULIE MANLY, M.D.; THERESA ARICO, R.N.; TARA LEVICY, R.N.; CITY OF DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL B. NIFONG; PATRICK BAKER; STEVEN CHALMERS; RONALD HODGE; LEE RUSS; STEPHEN MIHAICH; BEVERLY COUNCIL; EDWARD SARVIS; JEFF LAMB; MICHAEL RIPBERGER; LAIRD EVANS; JAMES T. SOUKUP; KAMMIE MICHAEL; DAVID W. ADDISON; MARK D. GOTTLIEB; BENJAMIN W. HIMAN; RICHARD D. CLAYTON; DNA SECURITY, INC.; RICHARD CLARK; BRIAN MEEHAN, PHD; VICTOR J. DZAU, M.D.; ALLISON HALTON; KEMEL DAWKINS; SUZANNE WASIOLEK; STEPHEN BRYAN; MATTHEW DRUMMOND; DUKE POLICE DEFENDANTS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00953-JAB-JEP) Submitted: October 30, 2014 Decided: November 4, 2014 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linwood Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Christopher Ekstrand, Stefanie Anne Smith, EKSTRAND & EKSTRAND, LLP, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Linwood Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing two claims against him and denying his motion for sanctions. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 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, 54546 (1949). Because the order did not dispose of all claims against all parties, it is not a final order. Parke-Davis curiam). order. & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th See Robinson v. Cir. 1982) (per Nor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral Accordingly, we deny appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal 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.