Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07745/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07745-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7745

LARNELL HENDRICK,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

FRANK B. BISHOP, NBCI Warden, in their individual and 

official capacities; LIEUTENANT SAWYERS, in their 

individual and official capacities; SERGEANT G. FORNEY, in 

their individual and official capacities; CO II SOLTAS, in 

their individual and official capacities; CO II ANDERSON, 

in their individual and official capacities; BILL BEEMAN, 

NBCI Medical Director, in their individual and official 

capacities; DR. AVA JOUBERT, M.D.; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, 

INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. 

(8:14-cv-02544-TDC)

Submitted: March 21, 2016 Decided: April 4, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larnell Hendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, 

RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland; Ankush Nayar,

Appeal: 15-7745 Doc: 19 Filed: 04/04/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7745 Doc: 19 Filed: 04/04/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Larnell Hendrick seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

resolving several of Hendrick’s claims in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2012) action. 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 v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

545-46 (1949). The order Hendrick seeks to appeal is neither a 

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss the 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

Appeal: 15-7745 Doc: 19 Filed: 04/04/2016 Pg: 3 of 3