The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
22-1824•PAUL TRUETT CANADY, II, Administrator for the Estate of Jimmie Andrew Underwood,… v. James Holder, in his individual capacity
22-1824Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 7, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1824
PAUL TRUETT CANADY, II, Administrator for the Estate of Jimmie Andrew
Underwood, a/k/a James Blackmon, a/k/a James Blackman, a/k/a Jimmy Lee
Hooker,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JAMES HOLDER, in his individual capacity; ANDREW MUNDAY, in his
individual capacity; CITY OF RALEIGH,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00524-FL)
Argued: March 9, 2023 Decided: June 7, 2023
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: David S. Rudolf, PFEIFFER RUDOLF, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Jason Robert Benton, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Sonya Pfeiffer, Joseph P.
Lattimore, RUDOLF WIDENHOUSE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Daniel
E. Peterson, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee James Holder. Rachel E. Keen, Sonny S. Haynes, WOMBLE BOND
-- 1 of 3 --
2
DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee Andrew Munday.
Norwood Pitt Blanchard, III, CROSSLEY MCINTOSH COLLIER HANLEY & EDES
PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellee City of Raleigh.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
James Blackmon filed an action against James Holder, Andrew Munday, and the
City of Raleigh, bringing constitutional and state-law claims. The district court dismissed
some of the claims, and then Blackmon voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims and
appealed. We now dismiss the appeal because his voluntary dismissal of certain claims
without prejudice created a non-final and non-appealable split judgment over which this
Court lacks jurisdiction. See Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. 23, 27 (2017); Waugh
Chapel S., LLC v. United Food & Com. Workers Unions Loc. 27, 728 F.3d 354, 359 (4th
Cir. 2013); Poly-Med Inc. v. Novus Sci. PTE Ltd., 773 F. App’x 727, 727 (4th Cir. 2019).
We remand for such further proceedings, if any, as appropriate.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.