Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01390/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01390-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1390

REGINALD EVANS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

YORK COUNTY INC.; ROCK HILL INC., CITY OF; BH MANAGEMENT; 

PACES RIVER APARTMENT; CLIFFORD BERINSKY; THOMAS I. HOWARD; 

BROWNLEE LAW FIRM PLLC; DINA D. BIGGS; ALYSSA PRUITT; LAND 

STAR TRANSPORTATION LOGISTIC INC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (0:15-cv-04954-JFA)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Evans, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1390 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his civil complaint. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). Because the 

deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied 

through the filing of an amended complaint averring sufficient 

facts in support of Evans’ claims, we conclude that the order 

Evans seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid 

Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar 

Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 

(4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we 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

Appeal: 16-1390 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 2