Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 13-2256
LINDA A. EVANS,
Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
GEORGE L. PERRY, Director of Pitt County Social Services in
his official capacity; CYNTHIA M. ROSS, in her individual
capacity; LINDA MILLION, in her individual capacity,
Defendants Appellants,
and
PITT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; APRIL HANNING,
in her individual capacity; LINDA MARTIN CURTIS, in her
individual capacity,
Defendants.
No. 13-2294
LINDA A. EVANS,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
PITT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GEORGE L. PERRY,
Director of Pitt County Social Services in his official
capacity;
APRIL HANNING, in her individual capacity;
CYNTHIA M. ROSS, in her individual capacity; LINDA MILLION,
in her individual capacity,
Defendants Appellees,
and
LINDA MARTIN CURTIS, in her individual capacity,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:12-cv-00226-FL)
Submitted:
DUNCAN,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
PER CURIAM:
Linda
A.
Evans
filed
42
U.S.C.
1983
(2012)
George
Perry,
Linda
Million,
Cynthia
Ross,
April
filed
an
answer
to
the
complaint,
the
While
remaining
planning
and
familial
association,
and
dismissing
claim.
The
district
court
adopted
the
magistrate
an
interlocutory
appeal
of
the
district
seeks
to
challenge
in
this
appeal
courts
order
Evans cross-appealed,
the
dismissal
of
the
remaining claims.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen
545-46
v.
(1949).
Beneficial
A
final
Indus.
Loan
decision
Corp.,
337
one
which
is
U.S.
541,
ends
the
229,
is
233
(1945).
An
order
not
final
if
it
disposes
of
685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b)).
A district courts grant or denial of immunity is an
immediately appealable order.
511,
530
(1985).
The
courts
dismissal
of
Evans
remaining
or collateral order.
against
whom
Evans
claims
remain
pending
in
the
district court.
We
review
may
issues
exercise
that
are
pendent
not
appellate
otherwise
jurisdiction
subject
to
to
immediate
Rux v.
Republic of Sudan, 461 F.3d 461, 475 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted).
Such
jurisdiction
is
available
only
(1) when
an
review
(citing
Swint
v.
(1995))
(internal
insufficient
of
an
Chamber
issue
is
immediately
Cnty.
quotation
necessary
appealable
Commn,
marks
514
to
issue.
U.S.
omitted).
We
35,
ensure
Id.
50-51
conclude,
however, that the issues Evans seeks to raise on appeal are not
inextricably
intertwined
with
the
immunity
issue,
and
accepting
drawing
party.
factual
all
allegations
reasonable
in
the
inferences
in
complaint
favor
of
as
the
true
and
nonmoving
Bell
135
(4th
Cir.
1989).
That
immunity
extends
only
to
Id. at 135-38.
required
interest;
(2)
to
demonstrate
of
which
(1)
[the
that
[she]
Appellants]
had
property
deprived
[her];
Ashe
(4th
County,
omitted).
281
F.3d
430,
436
Cir.
2002)
(citation
is
within
the
Fourteenth
Amendments
protection
of
Tri
interest
in
removal hearings.
her
assets
that
were
frozen
during
the
F.3d 533, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (money and right to enjoy real
property are clearly cognizable property interests).
rejected
immunity,
however,
finding
that
Evans
The court
had
pleaded
the
based
specific
on
the
claim
of
deprivation
procedural
of
Evans
due
process
property.
violation
The
actions
include
preparing
and
filing
removal
petition
and
entitled
We
therefore
to
absolute
conclude
immunity
that
from
Ross
and
Evans
Million
claim
that
were
they
that
process
survived
claim
because
survived
the
against
underlying
Ross
and
procedural
Million.
due
See
As we find
the
facts
and
legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and