Fadel Hamdan v. Ghada El-Badrawy Younes , 615 F. App'x 165 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1389
FADEL HAMDAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GHADA EL-BADRAWY YOUNES,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; ANGELA VERNAIL,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00086-TSE-JFA)
Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 9, 2015
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fadel Hamdan, Appellant Pro Se. Ghada El-Badrawy Younes,
Appellee Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fadel Hamdan appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint with respect to Ghada El-
Badrawy Younes. * We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Hamdan v. Younes, No. 1:15-cv-00086-TSE-
JFA (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 13, 2015; entered Mar. 16, 2015); see
also Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329-34 (1983) (holding that
witness at criminal proceeding has absolute immunity for
testimony and is not state actor for purposes of § 1983
liability). 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.
AFFIRMED
* The order Hamdan appeals was not a final order when he
noted his appeal because it did not dispose of all the
defendants named in his complaint. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis
& Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982) (per curiam).
Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction over Hamdan’s appeal because,
subsequent to the filing of Hamdan’s notice of appeal, the
district court issued a final judgment that dismissed the
remaining defendants named in the amended complaint. See In re
Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that under
doctrine of cumulative finality “a notice of appeal from an
order disposing of all claims of one party filed before the
district court disposes of all claims of all parties is . . .
effective if the appellant obtains . . . final adjudication
before the court of appeals considers the case on its merits”
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).
2