Opinion
22-2104 22-2310
03-23-2023
ALEXIS CARBERRY BENSON, on behalf of minor child K.C., Jr.; KEVIN CARBERRY, SR., on behalf of minor child K.C., Jr., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. FORT MILL SCHOOLS/YORK COUNTY DISTRICT 4; AMY MAZIARZ; KRISTY SPEARS; MICHELE BRANNING; ANTHONY BODDIE; WAYNE BOULDIN; SCOTT FRATTAROLI; CELIA MCCARTER; BRIAN MURPHY; JAMES EPPS; SAVANNAH STAGER; EMMA SHEPPARD; LAVONDA WILLIAMS; BRITTNEY KOBACK; JENNIFER GRANT; DOUGLAS DENT; SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants - Appellees. ALEXIS CARBERRY BENSON, on behalf of minor child K.C., Jr.; KEVIN CARBERRY, SR., on behalf of minor child K.C., Jr., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. FORT MILL SCHOOLS/YORK COUNTY DISTRICT 4; AMY MAZIARZ; KRISTY SPEARS; MICHELE BRANNING; ANTHONY BODDIE; WAYNE BOULDIN; SCOTT FRATTAROLI; CELIA MCCARTER; BRIAN MURPHY; JAMES EPPS; SAVANNAH STAGER; EMMA SHEPPARD; LAVONDA WILLIAMS; BRITTNEY KOBACK; JENNIFER GRANT; DOUGLAS DENT; SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants - Appellees.
Alexis Carberry Benson, Kevin Carberry, Sr., Appellants Pro Se. Beverly A. Carroll, MORTON &GETTYS, LLC, Rock Hill, South Carolina; David T. Duff, David N. Lyon, DUFF FREEMAN LYON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 21, 2023
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Shiva Vafai Hodges, Magistrate Judge. (0:22-cv-00614-SAL-SVH)
Alexis Carberry Benson, Kevin Carberry, Sr., Appellants Pro Se.
Beverly A. Carroll, MORTON &GETTYS, LLC, Rock Hill, South Carolina; David T. Duff, David N. Lyon, DUFF FREEMAN LYON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated appeals, Alexis Carberry Benson and Kevin Carberry, Sr., on behalf of their minor child, K.C., Jr., ("Plaintiffs") seek to appeal the magistrate judge's October 6, 2022, order vacating the prior two reports and recommendations, denying Plaintiffs' renewed motion to appoint counsel and motions to amend the complaint, and granting in part Plaintiffs' motions to consolidate their complaints. Plaintiffs also seek to appeal the magistrate judge's concurrent report recommending that the district court deny in part Plaintiffs' motions to change venue, allow Plaintiffs' claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, asserted on their own behalf to proceed against certain Defendants, and dismiss all other claims. (No. 22-2104).Plaintiffs further seek to appeal the magistrate judge's December 7, 2022, and December 12, 2022, Roseboro notice orders. (No. 22-2310).
To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to appeal the portion of the magistrate judge's March 3, 2022, order denying their emergency motion for an injunction, the appeal is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (5), (6) (providing parties 30 days after entry of final judgment or order to note an appeal in a civil case unless the district court extends or reopens the appeal period); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) ("[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.").
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975).
Although Plaintiffs' notice of appeal in No. 22-2104 only identifies the magistrate judge's October 6, 2022, order, the informal brief also identifies the magistrate judge's recommendation included with the October 6, 2022, report. To the extent that Plaintiffs intended to appeal the magistrate judge's October 6, 2022, recommendation and order, as well as the December 7, 2022, and December 12, 2022, Roseboro notice orders, 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 recommendation and orders Plaintiffs seek to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders, and Plaintiffs' case remains pending in the district court.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals 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