UNPUBLISHED

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 

capacities; 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 Prosecutorial 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 

Magistrate; 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 

Animal Control; JAMES HARWOOD, 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 capacity as (former) Detective for the Madison 

County Sheriff’s Department; JOHN LEDFORD, 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 individual 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 unpublished per curiam opinion.

Delta Walsh, Appellant Pro Se. Larry Leake, LEAKE & SCOTT, 

Asheville, North Carolina; Andrew B. Parker, LONG, PARKER & 

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 opinions 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 recommendations and granting the 

motions to dismiss certain Defendants with prejudice, denying 

the motion to dismiss certain Defendants without prejudice, and 

granting Walsh leave to file a second amended complaint

(excluding the Defendants dismissed with prejudice) or voluntary 

dismissal within twenty days of the entry of the 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 order 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).