**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 

**- 2024** 

DELTA WALSH, Individually, and on behalf of her minor children, to

- wit; R.M.; R.W.; W.W.; R.K.
,
Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v.
DEWAIN MACKEY, and Madison County Planning/Zoning Board, in his official capacity as Vice

- Chairman; MADISON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD; MACKEY FARMS; MADISON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; KATHY PARKER MACKEY, and Mackey Farm and Madison County School District, in her individual and professional
capac ities; KATHY RAY, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as Paralegal for the Twenty

- Fourth Prosecutorial District; GERALD WILSON, in his individual capacity, and in his official capacity as Chief District Attorney for the Twenty

- Fourth Pr osecutorial District; ALEXANDER LYERLY, in his individual capacity, and in his official as Chief District Court Judge for the Twenty

- Fourth Judicial District; SAMUEL E. PARKER, in his individual capacity, and in his official capacity as Madison County Magi strate; RONALD WILCOX, and the Madison County School District, in his individual capacity, and in his professional capacity as Superintendent for Madison County School District; ROBERT DAVIDSON, and Madison County Animal Control, in his individual capacity , and in his official capacity as former Director for Madison County Animal Control; MADISON COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL; SAM LUNSFORD, and Madison County Animal Control, in his individual capacity, and in his official capacity as Director for Madison County Ani mal Control; JAMES HARW OOD, and Madison County Sheriff ’ s Department, in his individual capacity, and in his official capacity as Madison County Sheriff; MADISON COUNTY SHERIFF ’ S DEPARTMENT; GEORGE COLE, in his individual capacity, and in his official capac ity as (former) Detective for the Madison County Sheriff ’ s Department; JOHN LEDF ORD, and Madison County Sheriff ’ s Department, in his individual capacity, and in his official capacity as (former) Madison County Sheriff;2 LAMONA BANKS LEDFORD, in her individu al capacity, and in her professional capacity as owner/operator of Scott Banks Trucking Company; JOHN DOES, as yet unknown and others unnamed; DEWAIN MACKEY, and Mackey Farm and Madison County School District, in his individual and professional capacities
,

Defendants

– Appellees,

and

JANE DOES,

Defendant.

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

. Martin K. Reidinger
, District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv

- 00321

- MR

- DCK )

Submitted : November 13 , 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Delta Walsh, Appellant Pro Se. Larry Leake, LEAKE & SCOTT, Asheville, North Carolina; Andrew B. Parker, LONG, PARK ER & WARREN, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina; Brian David Elston, Karl Dean Shatley, II, CAMPBELL SHATLEY, PLLC, Asheville, North Carolina; David John Adinolfi, II, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opin ions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Delta Walsh seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s re commendations and granting the

motions to d ismiss certain Defendants with prejudice, denying

the motion to d ismiss certain Defendants without prejudice, and

granting Walsh leave to file a second a mended c omplaint

( excluding the Defendants dismissed with prejudice ) or voluntary

d ismissal within twenty days of the entry of t he order

. * We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Walsh v. Mackey , No. 1:11

- cv

- 00321

- MR

- DCK (W.D.N.C. Aug.

3, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

* Walsh’s appeal from this order was interlocutory when filed. The district court’s subsequent entry of a final judgment permits review of the orde r under the doctrine of cumulative finality. In re Bryson , 406 F.3d 284, 287

- 89 (4th Cir. 2005); Equip. Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers , 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992).