Alexis Carberry Benson, on behalf of minor child K.C., Jr. v. Fort Mill Schools/york County District 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UNPUBLISHED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,

-- 1 of 4 --

2
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 4 --

3
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, Roseboro2 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 of 4 --

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 of 4 --