Lydon McCann-McCalpine v. PrimeCare Medical, Incorporated, No. 23-7122 (4th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-7122 LYDON MCCANN-MCCALPINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC.; PRIMECARE NURSE JANE DOE 1; PRIMECARE NURSE JANE DOE 2; PRIMECARE NURSE JANE DOE 3; PRIMECARE NURSE JANE DOE 4; PRIMECARE NURSE JANE DOE 5, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:23-cv-02040-GLR) Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 19, 2024 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lydon McCann-McCalpine, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lydon McCann-McCalpine seeks to appeal the district court’s order returning his complaint, received October 23, 2023, as duplicative of the amended complaint he filed in a case that was closed on October 17, 2023. 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, 54546 (1949). We conclude that the document returning McCann-McCalpine’s complaint, although docketed as a “return pleading order,” is in fact an administrative letter notifying McCann-McCalpine that the district court was rejecting his attempt to file additional pleadings because his case was already closed. As such, the order returning McCannMcCalpine’s complaint is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal 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 Because the October 17 dismissal of the amended complaint was without prejudice, if there are substantive differences in his October 23 complaint or other circumstances would justify it, McCann-McCalpine may be able to file his complaint as a new action in the district court. On this subject we offer no opinion. * 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
