Mark Kirby, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Jane Kirby v. South Carolina State Accident Fund

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1176
MARK KIRBY, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Jane Kirby,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
JANE KIRBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA STATE ACCIDENT FUND, Et Al.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (3:24-cv-03586-JDA)
Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 28, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Kirby, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Mark Kirby, on behalf of the estate of his wife, appeals the district court’s order (1)
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Kirby’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint, in which he raised constitutional violations centered around a work-related
injury his wife suffered prior to her death, and (2) denying his motion to remand the action
to state court. Kirby also appeals the district court’s order denying in part and granting in
part his motion for reconsideration and amending the dismissal order to be without
prejudice.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s
determination that the South Carolina State Accident Fund was entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity and that remand to the state court was not warranted. Nor do we
discern any abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of the remaining claims raised in
Kirby’s postjudgment motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm. Kirby v. S.C.
State Accident Fund, No. 3:24-cv-03586-JDA (D.S.C. filed Feb. 11, 2025 & entered Feb.
12, 2025; Feb. 24, 2025). 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* The district court’s amended order is final appealable because the court did not
grant leave to amend. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc)
(order). In addition, although Kirby did not file a notice of appeal after the court amended
the dismissal order and ruled on the motion for reconsideration, Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4)(B)(ii), we have jurisdiction because Kirby filed his informal brief in this court
within the applicable appeal period. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992).

-- 2 of 2 --