Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-01659/USCOURTS-ca4-23-01659-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1147

JOE LOUIS ADAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

3D SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 23-1356

JOE LOUIS ADAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

3D SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 23-1473

JOE LOUIS ADAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1659 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/17/2024 Pg: 1 of 5
2

v.

3D SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 23-1659

JOE LOUIS ADAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

3D SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Mary G. Lewis; J. Michelle Childs, District Judges. (0:19-cv-00663-MGL)

Submitted: November 8, 2023 Decided: January 17, 2024

Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe Louis Adams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Lee Sease Cluverius, Ashley Robertson 

Parr, Greenville, South Carolina, Nikole Setzler Mergo, MAYNARD NEXSEN PC, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1659 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/17/2024 Pg: 2 of 5
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Joe Louis Adams, Jr., appeals several district court 

orders issued in Adams’ action against his former employer, 3D Systems, Inc. (“3D 

Systems”). In his action, Adams asserted claims for harassment, discrimination, and 

retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 

2000e-17; age discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 

29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634; and assault, negligent supervision, and wrongful termination 

under South Carolina law. 3D Systems has filed a motion to dismiss as interlocutory 

Appeal No. 23-1147 and moves to seal confidential materials in Appeal Nos. 23-1356 and 

23-1473. Adams has filed motions to adopt all pleadings in opposition in Appeal No. 23-

1147, and to reverse the district court’s decision on appeal and for appointment of counsel 

in Appeal Nos. 23-1147, 23-1473, and 23-1659. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

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). Adams filed notices of 

appeal seeking to appeal the orders underlying Appeal No. 23-1147 before the district court 

entered final judgment in the underlying action. None of the orders identified in the 

respective notices of appeal are final orders or appealable interlocutory or collateral orders, 

however, and we find that the cumulative finality doctrine is inapplicable here. See Houck 

v. LifeStore Bank, 41 F.4th 266, 271 (4th Cir. 2022) (recognizing that the cumulative 

finality doctrine allows this court “to consider an otherwise premature appeal,” but only if 

“(1) all joint claims or all multiple parties are dismissed prior to the consideration of the 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1659 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/17/2024 Pg: 3 of 5
4

appeal; and (2) the appellant appeals from an order that the district court could have 

certified for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b)” (cleaned up)), cert. denied, No. 22-6557, 

2023 WL 6377997 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2023). Accordingly, we grant 3D Systems’ motion to 

dismiss Appeal No. 23-1147 and dismiss the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction. 

As to the remaining orders Adams challenges in these appeals, we have reviewed 

the record in conjunction with the issues Adams raises in his informal briefs and discern 

no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, 

[this Court’s] review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). For instance, we 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it sanctioned Adams for 

his failure to attend court proceedings or when it denied Adams’ motion for recusal. See

United States v. Stone, 866 F.3d 219, 229 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating standard of review 

applicable to order denying motion for recusal); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th 

Cir. 1989) (stating standard of review applicable to order imposing sanctions). We likewise 

discern no reversible error as to the district court’s order granting 3D Systems summary 

judgment on Adams’ claims. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment in part. 

Adams v. 3D Systems, Inc., No. 0:19-cv-00663-MGL (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2023). 

Accordingly, we grant 3D Systems’ motion to dismiss as interlocutory Appeal No. 

23-1147 and dismiss this consolidated appeal in part and affirm in part. We grant 3D 

Systems’ motions to seal in Appeal Nos. 23-1356 and 23-1473, deny Adams’ motion to 

adopt all pleadings in opposition in Appeal No. 23-1147, and deny his motions to reverse 

the district court’s decision on appeal and for appointment of counsel in Appeal Nos. 23-

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1659 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/17/2024 Pg: 4 of 5
5

1147, 23-1473, and 23-1659. 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 IN PART,

AFFIRMED IN PART

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1659 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/17/2024 Pg: 5 of 5