Shaun Brown v. USDA, No. 18-1586 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1586 SHAUN BROWN; JENEVER BROWN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and JOBS VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a/k/a JOBS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; WILLIAM STRONG, in his official and individual capacity; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; DR. MICHAEL WELCH, in his official and individual capacity; JUSTIN CURTIS, in his official and individual capacity; DENISE BRANSCOME, in her official and individual capacity; ELIZABETH LAW, in her official and individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01377-LO-MSN) Submitted: April 30, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Decided: May 10, 2019 Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shaun Brown, Jenever Brown, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Shaun Brown and Jenever Brown appeal the district court’s order dismissing Defendants Virginia Department of Health, Dr. Michael Welch, Justin Curtis, Denise Branscome, and Elizabeth Law from the Plaintiffs’ civil rights action. 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). Because the action remains pending as to the United States Department of Agriculture and William Strong, the order Plaintiffs seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Hunter v. Town of Mocksville, 789 F.3d 389, 402 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court to consider Plaintiffs’ claims against these remaining Defendants. 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 AND REMANDED 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.
