Ronald McClary v. Officer Holder, No. 19-6125 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6125 RONALD MCCLARY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER HOLDER; OFFICER JOYNER; ROBERT BURGESS; NURSE FULLER; RODERICK WATSON; DENNIS DANIELS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-ct-03051-FL) Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 17, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald McClary appeals the district court’s order dismissing some of his claims as frivolous, but allowing another claim to proceed. Finding that the court’s order is interlocutory, we dismiss the appeal. 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). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court dismissed most of McClary’s claims as frivolous, but found another claim was not frivolous and allowed it to proceed. Because a claim remains outstanding, the court’s order is not final. In addition, the court did not certify its interlocutory order for immediate appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). See Fox v. Balt. City Police Dep’t, 201 F.3d 526, 530 (4th Cir. 2000) (“Rule 54(b) . . . provides a vehicle by which a district court can certify for immediate appeal a judgment that disposes of fewer than all of the claims or resolves the controversy as to fewer than all of the parties.”). Because the court’s order is a nonfinal, nonappealable interlocutory decision, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. 2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
