Fadel Hamdan v. Ghada El-Badrawy Younes, No. 15-1389 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1389 FADEL HAMDAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GHADA EL-BADRAWY YOUNES, Defendant – Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; ANGELA VERNAIL, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00086-TSE-JFA) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit Judges, September 9, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fadel Hamdan, Appellant Appellee Pro Se. Pro Se. Ghada El-Badrawy Younes, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Fadel Hamdan appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint with respect to Ghada ElYounes. * Badrawy reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hamdan v. Younes, No. 1:15-cv-00086-TSE- JFA (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 13, 2015; entered Mar. 16, 2015); see also Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329-34 (1983) (holding that witness at testimony criminal and liability). is not proceeding state has actor absolute for immunity purposes of for § 1983 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 * The order Hamdan appeals was not a final order when he noted his appeal because it did not dispose of all the defendants named in his complaint. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction over Hamdan’s appeal because, subsequent to the filing of Hamdan’s notice of appeal, the district court issued a final judgment that dismissed the remaining defendants named in the amended complaint. See In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that under doctrine of cumulative finality “a notice of appeal from an order disposing of all claims of one party filed before the district court disposes of all claims of all parties is . . . effective if the appellant obtains . . . final adjudication before the court of appeals considers the case on its merits” (internal quotation marks and brackets 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.
