Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01389/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01389-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commonwealth of Virginia

Fadel Hamdan
Appellant
Angela Vernail

Ghada El-Badrawy Younes
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1389

FADEL HAMDAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GHADA EL-BADRAWY YOUNES,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; ANGELA VERNAIL,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00086-TSE-JFA)

Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 9, 2015

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fadel Hamdan, Appellant Pro Se. Ghada El-Badrawy Younes, 

Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1389 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/09/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Fadel Hamdan appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint with respect to Ghada ElBadrawy Younes.* We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Hamdan v. Younes, No. 1:15-cv-00086-TSEJFA (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 13, 2015; entered Mar. 16, 2015); see 

also Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329-34 (1983) (holding that 

witness at criminal proceeding has absolute immunity for 

testimony and is not state actor for purposes of § 1983 

liability). 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.

AFFIRMED

 * The order Hamdan appeals was not a final order when he 

noted his appeal because it did not dispose of all the 

defendants named in his complaint. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis 

& Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). 

Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction over Hamdan’s appeal because, 

subsequent to the filing of Hamdan’s notice of appeal, the 

district court issued a final judgment that dismissed the 

remaining defendants named in the amended complaint. See In re 

Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that under 

doctrine of cumulative finality “a notice of appeal from an 

order disposing of all claims of one party filed before the 

district court disposes of all claims of all parties is . . . 

effective if the appellant obtains . . . final adjudication 

before the court of appeals considers the case on its merits”

(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).

Appeal: 15-1389 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/09/2015 Pg: 2 of 2