Ekoko Avoki v. City of Chester, SC, No. 20-2033 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-2033 EKOKO K. AVOKI; FRANCISCO K. AVOKI, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF CHESTER, SC; POLICE OF CHESTER, SC; DOES I-XXX; PTL COVINGTON, Individually, Defendants - Appellees, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DOES I-XX, unknown, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (0:17-cv-01141-SAL-PJG) Submitted: July 19, 2021 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Decided: August 3, 2021 Ekoko K. Avoki, Francisco K. Avoki, Appellants Pro Se. David Allan DeMasters, DAVIDSON, WREN & PLYLER, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Francisco K. Avoki and his wife, Ekoko K. Avoki, seek to appeal two orders issued by the district court in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action: (1) the March 6, 2020, order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Defendants partial summary judgment and to stay the remainder of the claims pending resolution of Mrs. Avoki’s related state criminal proceedings; and (2) the April 17, 2020, order denying the Avokis’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the court’s prior ruling. 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). The orders that the Avokis seek to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. * Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny the Avokis’ motion to consolidate this case with the appeal pending in No. 20-1944, Avoki v. City of Chester, S.C. 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 While we would have jurisdiction to review the district court’s secondary ruling in its order rejecting the Rule 59(e) motion—to wit: the denial of the Avokis’ request for injunctive relief against an unnamed party, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)—we do not reach that ruling because the Avokis have not raised any argument related thereto in their informal briefs, see 4th Cir. Rule 34(b). * 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.
