Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01611/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01611-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1611

CALVIN TYRONE NORTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRIAN NICHOLAS HIGH, in his personal capacity and his official capacity as a 

Deputy Sheriff of Columbus County, North Carolina; LEWIS L. HATCHER, in his 

personal capacity and his official capacity as Sheriff of Columbus County North 

Carolina; WESTERN SURETY CO., d/b/a CNA Surety Insurance as the Surety for 

the Columbus County Sheriff; TRACEY WARD, also named “John Doe” in his 

personal capacity and his official capacity as Lieutenant of Columbus County 

Detention Center of the Sheriff; RENE TREVINO, in his personal capacity and his 

official capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Columbus County, North Carolina,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

MAGISTRATE GREGORY L. GREENE; CLEMENTINE THOMPSON, Captain,

Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00045-FL)

Submitted: January 31, 2020 Decided: February 13, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1611 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/13/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Tyrone Norton, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley O. Wood, WOMBLE BOND 

DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1611 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/13/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Tyrone Norton appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment 

in favor of Appellees in Norton’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and imposing sanctions 

on him under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(g). We dismiss in part and affirm in part. 

Initially, we are obliged to inquire sua sponte into our own jurisdiction, even where 

the parties do not dispute it. Clark v. Cartledge, 829 F.3d 303, 305 (4th Cir. 2016). Insofar 

as Norton seeks to appeal the district court’s determination that he should be sanctioned 

under Rule 30(g), we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s ruling, as the court had 

not yet determined the amount of the sanction when Norton noted his appeal. See, e.g.,

MetLife Life & Annuity Co. of Conn. v. Akpele, 886 F.3d 998, 1008 (11th Cir. 2018) 

(holding that award of attorney’s fees is not final where amount of fee has not been 

quantified); Cooke v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 882 F.3d 630, 632 (7th Cir. 2018) (same);

Orenshteyn v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 691 F.3d 1356, 1358-64 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that 

decision to impose sanctions generally is not appealable until court determines and imposes 

sanction, and collecting cases); Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 989, 

993 (6th Cir. 2012) (same). Although the district court has since determined the amount 

of that sanction, Norton has not separately noted an appeal from that order, and the doctrine 

of cumulative finality cannot cure the jurisdictional defect. See Houck v. Substitute Tr. 

Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 473, 479 (4th Cir. 2015) (“The doctrine [of cumulative finality] 

applies . . . only when the appellant appeals from an order that the district court could have 

certified for immediate appeal under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 54(b).”); In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 

288 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting that “a premature notice of appeal from a clearly interlocutory 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1611 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/13/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

decision” cannot “serve as a notice of appeal from the final judgment” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)). We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal. This jurisdictional 

defect, however, does not affect our jurisdiction to consider the underlying judgment. See 

Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund, 571 U.S. 177, 179 (2014).

Turning to Norton’s challenges to the district court’s summary judgment rulings, 

we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this 

portion of the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Norton v. High, No. 7:18-

cv-00045-FL (E.D.N.C. May 9, 2019). 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: 19-1611 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/13/2020 Pg: 4 of 4