Cynthia Holmes v. James Becker, No. 18-2255 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2255 CYNTHIA HOLMES, a/k/a C. Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia C. Holmes, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES Y. BECKER, individually; M. M. CASKEY, individually; HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P. A.; MIKELL R. SCARBOROUGH, in official capacity and, as indicated, individually re: unofficial acts, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate Judge. (2:17-cv-02949-BHH-BM) Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 8, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. * Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. * (2012). This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) Cynthia C. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Mary McFarland Caskey, HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Andrew Lindemann, LINDEMANN, DAVIS & HUGHES, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Cynthia C. Holmes seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s text order denying her motion to reconsider a June 13, 2018, order. 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 order Holmes seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the Appellees’ motions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Holmes’ motion for an enlargement of time. 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.