Filed: Mar. 17, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 17, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1064 BRANDON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR; COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendants - Appellees. 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) Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020 Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1064 BRANDON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR; COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendants - Appellees. 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) Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020 Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed b..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1064
BRANDON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR;
COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
Defendants - Appellees.
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)
Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
2