James McNeill v. Patricia Anderson, No. 19-6132 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6132 JAMES C. MCNEILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATRICIA ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellee, and KATY POOLE, Superintendent; GEORGE SOLOMON, Director of Prisons; SHANNON MAPLES, Unit Manager; GEORGE S. WARREN; WILLIAM BULLARD, Assistant Superintendent; PAUL TAYLOR, Assistant Superintendent; SGT. JOHNSTON; DOCTOR LOCKLEAR-JONES; SHAQUANNA M. WALL, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00924-LCB-JLW) Submitted: May 23, 2019 Decided: May 29, 2019 Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James C. McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James C. McNeill seeks to appeal the district court’s amended judgment adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying McNeill’s motion for entry of default judgment and granting Patricia Anderson’s motion to remove default. 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, 545-45 (1949). The amended judgment McNeill seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. * 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 * An order denying a preliminary injunction is immediately appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012); see Dewhurst v. Cent. Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011). Our review of McNeill’s notice of appeal and informal brief lead us to conclude that he does not seek to appeal the portion of the district court’s amended judgment denying a preliminary injunction. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief”). 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.