Jerome Garcia v. South Carolina DSS Child Support Agency

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1366 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1366 JEROME GARCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DSS CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:23-cv-03012-MGL) Submitted: October 3, 2025 Decided: October 30, 2025 Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1366 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Jerome Garcia seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Garcia’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the South Carolina Department of Social Services Child Support Agency (“DSS”) and DSS attorney Gayle Watson. 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). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the claims raised in the complaint. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court failed to address Garcia’s allegations against Watson, who Garcia named as a defendant in the original complaint, and his claim pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). We conclude that the order Garcia seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claims. See Porter, 803 F.3d at 699. 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 AND REMANDED 2