Carl McAdoo v. US, No. 15-1938 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1938 CARL E. MCADOO, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (Department of Veterans Affairs) in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; DR. ERNEST T. AHL, JR., in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; DR. SONNY W. TUCKER, JR., in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; SANDY F. PIERCE, Physician Assistant, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; RUTHERFORD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; JOHN CARROLL, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; VIC MARTIN, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; ANN PADGETT, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; JOYCE ANN NASH, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:14-cv-00239-MOC-DLH) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl E. McAdoo, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, Sr., Assistant 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Carl E. McAdoo seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation dismissing all defendants civil action. of except the Joyce magistrate Ann Nash judge in and McAdoo’s 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. 545-46 (1949). Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, The order McAdoo seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials 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.
