Naresh C. Arora, et ux. v. Captain James, et al.

The entire controversy revolves around the Fourth Circuit court's lack of jurisdiction. The court considered that it had the jurisdiction. The court did not explain how it invoked its jurisdiction over Petitioners Aroras' objections. WHETHER the circuit court can invoke its own jurisdiction contrary to an Article III, § 1 of the Constitution and the Statute 28 U.S.C. § 1291 by ruling on the merits of the case when a timely notice of appeal is filed or taken from a district court's incorrectly labelled judgment, which is not a final judgment. WHETHER the district court can enter a final judgment for the purpose of an appeal if the constitutional challenge to a statute is pending as the court did not take any action pursuant to Rule 5.1 of Fed. R. Civ. P. and 28 U.S.C. § 2403. WHETHER the circuit court can affirm a district court order of a dismissal of a complaint on the mootness ground of insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5) of Fed. R. Civ. P. for a defendant who had been personally served under Rule 4(d) of South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure by virtue of their voluntary appearance. WHETHER the district court can enter a final judgment for the purpose of an appeal if the court expressly declined to make a de novo determination on the party's objections of magistrate judge's report and recommendation within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) or Rule 72(b)(3) of Fed. R. Civ. P. There is also a split in authorities. $ -- . I. - - .r