Case Name: Anthony Russell WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain MELITIS; Lieutenant Fullilove; c/o Correctional Officer Goodman; S. Adams, Doctor, Defendants-Appellees, and County of Prince William, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-22
Citations: 34 F. App'x 940
Docket Number: No. 01-7791
Parties: Anthony Russell WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain MELITIS; Lieutenant Fullilove; c/o Correctional Officer Goodman; S. Adams, Doctor, Defendants-Appellees, and County of Prince William, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 34
Pages: 940–940

Head Matter:
Anthony Russell WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain MELITIS; Lieutenant Fullilove; c/o Correctional Officer Goodman; S. Adams, Doctor, Defendants-Appellees, and County of Prince William, Defendant.
No. 01-7791.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 16, 2002.
Decided May 22, 2002.
Anthony Russell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. David John Fudala, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Russell Williams appeals the order denying as untimely his motion to add additional parties. The incident that gave rise to Williams' complaint occurred on January 18, 1998, and is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Williams' motion, which was filed in June 2001, attempted to add parties after the expiration of the statute of limitations. That motion does not relate back to the original complaint, and is thus barred by the statute of limitations. See Intown Properties Management, Inc. v. Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., 271 F.3d 164, 170 (4th Cir.2001).
We affirm the order of the district court. 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.
This appeal was interlocutory when filed. However, because the district court entered final judgment prior to our consideration of this appeal, we have jurisdiction under the doctrine of cumulative finality. Equipment Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir.1992).