Sylvester E. Harding, Iii v. Captain R. Roush

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7390
SYLVESTER E. HARDING, III,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CAPTAIN R. ROUSH; LIEUTENANT D. BULLARD; CLAYTON RICHARD,
U. S. Supreme Court; OFFICER A. BROWN; BILLY WEST,
Cumberland County District Attorney; ROBBIE DICK; CLAIRE
HILL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:12-ct-03136-FL)
Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sylvester E. Harding, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sylvester E. Harding, III, appeals the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action
without prejudice* pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
(2012) for failure to state a claim, and its order denying his
motion for reconsideration and various related post-judgment
motions. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Harding’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the
district court’s dispositions, Harding has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s orders. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s judgment and post-judgment order. 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
* Based on the district judge’s opinion, we conclude that
the dismissal was without prejudice, despite a statement to the
contrary in the court’s text order denying reconsideration.
Although dismissals without prejudice generally are
interlocutory and not appealable, here the court’s order of
dismissal is a final one, as the grounds for dismissal indicate
that Harding could not “save his action by merely amending his
complaint.” Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union
392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

-- 2 of 2 --