Case Name: Fadel HAMDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ghada El-Badrawy YOUNES, Defendant-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia; Angela Vernail, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-09
Citations: 615 F. App'x 165
Docket Number: No. 15-1389
Parties: Fadel HAMDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ghada El-Badrawy YOUNES, Defendant-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia; Angela Vernail, Defendants.
Judges: Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
Fadel HAMDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ghada El-Badrawy YOUNES, Defendant-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia; Angela Vernail, Defendants.
No. 15-1389.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 27, 2015.
Decided: Sept. 9, 2015.
Fadel Hamdan, Appellant Pro Se. Gha-da El-Badrawy Younes, Appellee Pro Se.
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fadel Hamdan appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint with respect to Ghada El-Badrawy 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. l:15-cv-00086-TSE-JFA (E.D.Va. filed Mar. 13, 2015; entered Mar. 16, 2015); see also Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329-34, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (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)).