Kimberly Spence v. Carl Willis, II, No. 17-2428 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2428 KIMBERLY T. SPENCE, f/k/a Kimberly S. Willis, Plaintiff - Appellant, and WILLIAM M. WINDSOR, Plaintiff, v. CARL J. WILLIS, II, Defendant - Appellee, and WELLSTAR MEDICAL GROUP PEDIATRIC & ADOLESCENT CENTER; ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CARDINALS, of Atlanta; ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE, of Atlanta; ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC SCHOOL AND LEADERSHIP; UNITED METHODIST CHURCH BISHOPS; BEN HILL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH; BEN HILL CHRISTIAN ACADEMY; WOODWARD ACADEMY; GEORGIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; GEORGIA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; CREATE-A-LOAD KENNESAW; REUNION PLACE SUBDIVISION; PAT ASTRIN; RE/MAX OF GEORGIA; PAT ASTRIN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC; CHELSEA BYNUM; MIA NICOLE SPENCER; MAID OF THE MIST CORPORATION; SEAN M. BOUSHIE; UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:17-cv-00272-D) Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: May 4, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kimberly T. Spence, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kimberly T. Spence seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation recommending that Spence’s civil action be dismissed as frivolous. 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, 545-46 (1949). The memorandum and recommendation Spence seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), (c)(1) (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and deny Spence’s pending motions as moot. 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. 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.