Ehonam Agbati v. VDACS, No. 20-1875 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1875 EHONAM M. AGBATI, a/k/a Roger Agbati, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, Office of Charitable and Regulatory Programs, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cv-00512-JAG) Submitted: October 22, 2020 Decided: October 26, 2020 Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ehonam M. Agbati, Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Spreague Hardy, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ehonam M. Agbati seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting in part and denying in part Appellee’s motion to dismiss Agbati’s initial complaint, denying Agbati’s motion for reconsideration of that order, and granting Appellee’s partial motion to dismiss Agbati’s amended complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; 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). Our review of the record reveals that the district court adjudicated only four of Agbati’s employment discrimination claims. Because Agbati’s failure to promote claim is still proceeding before the district court, and the court did not certify its orders for immediate appeal, we conclude that the orders Agbati seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 699. 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 2

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.