Williams v. N.C. Office of Governor

Full title: BRANDON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 17, 2020

No. 20-1064 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2020)

Opinion

No. 20-1064

03-17-2020

BRANDON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR; COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendants - Appellees.

Brandon Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Neil Clark Dalton, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00253-D) Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brandon Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Neil Clark Dalton, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Brandon Williams filed a notice of appeal in the district court, where his civil action was pending. Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and Williams has responded with a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Williams failed to identify the order from which he seeks to appeal, in violation of Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). When Williams filed his notice of appeal, the only order on the docket was the order referring his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to the magistrate judge. If Williams is seeking to appeal that order or the Clerk's letter advising him to respond to the motion to dismiss, the appeal is interlocutory, and we lack jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Otherwise, we lack jurisdiction because there was no other order from which Williams could have appealed.

Accordingly, we deny Williams' motion for judgment as a matter of law, grant Appellees' motion to dismiss, and 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