James Rose, Jr. v. State of South Carolina, No. 22-6218 (4th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6218 JAMES EDWARD ROSE, JR., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; HILL-FINKLEA DETENTION CENTER; R. MARKLEY DENNIS, JR.; DEADRA L. JEFFERSON; WILTON MCNEELY; BRANDON D. LATULLIP; T. DODD; BERKELEY COUNTY JAIL KEEPERS; RONNIE J. RUSSEL; PAULA FECHELM MCELVEGUE; B. WATSON; HENRY’S TOWING; HENRY LEGETTE; BAD BOYZ BAIL BONDS; MARIE FULLER; BO WILSON; RANDY DEMORY; ANTHONY PHYALL; KRIS JACUMIN; SERGEANT DOZER; OFFICER STALEY; K. SHULER; DEBRA K. LITTLEJOHN; JUDGE PRIOLEAU; OFFICER A. LIZZONO; GARY WASIELEUSKI, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (2:21-cv-02909-JMC) Submitted: May 19, 2022 Decided: May 24, 2022 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Rose, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Edward Rose, Jr., a pretrial detainee, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil rights action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Rose v. South Carolina, No. 2:21-cv-02909-JMC (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2022). We deny Rose’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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. AFFIRMED Because the defect identified by the district court—failure to prosecute or comply with a court order—is “unrelated to the contents of the pleadings,” we conclude that the district court’s order is final and appealable. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015), abrogated in part on other grounds by Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 611-12 (4th Cir. 2020) (discussing factors this court considers in determining whether order is final and appealable), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021). * 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.