Court Opinion

ID: 9382190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 21:01:56.693943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.685668
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2104   Doc: 16        Filed: 03/23/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                         UNPUBLISHED

                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                           No. 22-2104

        ALEXIS CARBERRY BENSON, on behalf of minor child K.C., Jr.; KEVIN
        CARBERRY, SR., on behalf of minor child K.C., Jr.,

                         Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                   v.

        FORT MILL SCHOOLS/YORK COUNTY DISTRICT 4; AMY MAZIARZ;
        KRISTY SPEARS; MICHELE BRANNING; ANTHONY BODDIE; WAYNE
        BOULDIN; SCOTT FRATTAROLI; CELIA MCCARTER; BRIAN MURPHY;
        JAMES EPPS; SAVANNAH STAGER; EMMA SHEPPARD; LAVONDA
        WILLIAMS; BRITTNEY KOBACK; JENNIFER GRANT; DOUGLAS DENT;
        SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EDUCATION,

                         Defendants - Appellees.

                                           No. 22-2310

        ALEXIS CARBERRY BENSON, on behalf of minor child K.C., Jr.; KEVIN
        CARBERRY, SR., on behalf of minor child K.C., Jr.,

                         Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                   v.

        FORT MILL SCHOOLS/YORK COUNTY DISTRICT 4; AMY MAZIARZ;
        KRISTY SPEARS; MICHELE BRANNING; ANTHONY BODDIE; WAYNE
        BOULDIN; SCOTT FRATTAROLI; CELIA MCCARTER; BRIAN MURPHY;
        JAMES EPPS; SAVANNAH STAGER; EMMA SHEPPARD; LAVONDA
        WILLIAMS; BRITTNEY KOBACK; JENNIFER GRANT; DOUGLAS DENT;
        SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EDUCATION,
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2104      Doc: 16         Filed: 03/23/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Shiva Vafai Hodges, Magistrate Judge. (0:22-cv-00614-SAL-SVH)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 23, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Alexis Carberry Benson, Kevin Carberry, Sr., Appellants Pro Se. Beverly A. Carroll,
        MORTON & GETTYS, LLC, Rock Hill, South Carolina; David T. Duff, David N. Lyon,
        DUFF FREEMAN LYON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2104        Doc: 16        Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In these consolidated appeals, Alexis Carberry Benson and Kevin Carberry, Sr., on

        behalf of their minor child, K.C., Jr., (“Plaintiffs”) seek to appeal the magistrate judge’s

        October 6, 2022, order vacating the prior two reports and recommendations, denying

        Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to appoint counsel and motions to amend the complaint, and

        granting in part Plaintiffs’ motions to consolidate their complaints. Plaintiffs also seek to

        appeal the magistrate judge’s concurrent report recommending that the district court deny

        in part Plaintiffs’ motions to change venue, allow Plaintiffs’ claims under the Individuals

        with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, asserted on their own behalf to

        proceed against certain Defendants, and dismiss all other claims.           (No. 22-2104). 1

        Plaintiffs further seek to appeal the magistrate judge’s December 7, 2022, and December

        12, 2022, Roseboro 2 notice orders. (No. 22-2310).

               Although Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal in No. 22-2104 only identifies the magistrate

        judge’s October 6, 2022, order, the informal brief also identifies the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation included with the October 6, 2022, report. To the extent that Plaintiffs

        intended to appeal the magistrate judge’s October 6, 2022, recommendation and order, as

               1
                  To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to appeal the portion of the magistrate judge’s
        March 3, 2022, order denying their emergency motion for an injunction, the appeal is
        untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (5), (6) (providing parties 30 days after entry of
        final judgment or order to note an appeal in a civil case unless the district court extends or
        reopens the appeal period); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely
        filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”).
               2
                   Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975).

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2104       Doc: 16         Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        well as the December 7, 2022, and December 12, 2022, Roseboro notice orders, this court

        may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory

        and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

        Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The recommendation and orders Plaintiffs seek

        to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders, and

        Plaintiffs’ case remains pending in the district court.

               Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

                                                      4